01-19-2014 01:50 PM
108 ... 2345
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Did you look at the link in footnote 4? It looks like that may be the study this article was based off of. I haven't looked at it personally, though, so not sure if it'd give you the answers you're looking for.
    01-04-2014 12:45 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    Did you look at the link in footnote 4? It looks like that may be the study this article was based off of. I haven't looked at it personally, though, so not sure if it'd give you the answers you're looking for.
    That's a very interesting document. It's much worse.

    I've only done the 9 minute version of reading the 27 pages and am going through the numbers now, but while I'm now convniced that if implemented with no compromises it would work... I'm also now convinced that it is far more regressive than we previously suspsected and that they know it. It's not even close to flat or progressive on an income basis (and it makes very few claims to be) and the numbers are probably in the right place for that said no compromise implementation, but we could accomplish the same thing revenue-wise by simply lowering the marginal rates on the top 1% while raising everyone else up to them. The table in the previous PDF is referring to the lifetime marginal tax rate on net savings after depreciation. That's not a small disctinction. I don't know if much has changed from the tax structure plan in the last 7-9 years since the analysis was completed, but several things have chanced since 2005/2006 in the economy. I'll post my findings in 2012/2013 context and see how they compare.
    01-04-2014 01:05 AM
  3. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I agree in not compromising on the plan during (if and when) its way to passage. Otherwise the whole thing could be derailed in the spirit of compromise between the two parties, and we wind up with yet another boondoggle that doesn't work while government pats itself on the back for successfully passing something.

    With the regressive vs progressive issue in relation to income, I've already established that doesn't matter a lot to me. So let's say for now that it would be regressive.. As written, it looks like everyone's overall tax burden goes down, everyone gets 100% of their paycheck, the tax is simple and 100% transparent, lobbying power is reduced, we capture underground economies for purposes of tax payment, additional revenue from tourist spending, business is expected to boom from increased saving and investing, efficiencies, and the best tax haven in the world, and other benefits I'm probably forgetting right now.

    Even if my personal burden reduction isn't as good as the rich, the fact that I'm still getting some combined with all those other benefits are enough for me to still like the plan. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I would be happy for a small savings with the rich getting a disproportionately larger savings and nothing more. I'm looking at the bigger picture, even if the tax is regressive compared to income.

    Are those other benefits enough to offset this for you in terms of the regressive/progressive debate and be willing to accept if it is regressive?
    01-06-2014 09:31 PM
  4. anon8126715's Avatar
    You can't just compare tax rates to identify one class "carrying everyone else" on its shoulders. You have to contrast it with income. Lets say back 75 years ago, the poorest had income of $1.00 and paid a dime in taxes that would be an effective 10%, lets say that the wealthiest person that year made $50 and paid $5.00 to get the same 10%. Now lets fast forward to present day, the person that once made $1.00 now makes lets say $10.00 to make it simple. If he pays the same 10%, then it's $1.00 in taxes that he pays. By contrast, the wealthiest person now makes a much greater amount, what was once $50 to the poorest person's $1.00 is now much greater. Breaking it down to just tax rate is one way the wealthy manipulate the numbers to get the uninformed to fight their battles. Increase my salary by 500% and have me pay an extra 5% or even 10% and yet they still have the nerve to belly ache? And even worse, have their lackies insist that they're being overtaxed?
    01-07-2014 09:45 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    When you start earning such high salaries, let's see if you have the same feelings. The people at the top didn't just fall into money. They had to work to get there. Saying the rich should feel ok giving up more like that is nothing more than an emotional ploy by people that don't know what it takes to be on top. So they have no business deciding what's an acceptable amount of taxation on someone richer than them.
    Serial Fordicator likes this.
    01-07-2014 10:06 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    I apologize for taking so long to kick this out, but it took a bit of time to reproduce their model and then figure out how to narrow it down to only two of the most impact variables without changing the underlying structure, such as what goods/services are taxed and in what way.

    Expenses
    :

    So there are some revenue reduction assumptions in the original aside from the removal of the IRS, etc. that amount to roughly a 3% reduction in total expenditure from 2006-ish levels, and rather than decrease expenses have raised by about 30%. This drives two necessary modifications in the model. 1. The revenue must be much higher in order to maintain the decline of the deficit towards eventual surplus/debt repayment 2. Long term obligations in forbearance should be represented in their entirety in the first stage of budget the budget roll-out to prevent "surprises" like 2006-2008's balloon payment of war-chest obligations and bailouts. At minimum we should have a large factor of revenue dedicated to risk, weighted by likelihood and if we don't spend it, good, that's a surplus.

    Revenue:

    2006 also is the high point of US revenue, it fell sharply at the beginning of the recession and is just now getting back to that level. Much more of the tax revenue is coming from the top of the payer base than it had previously, which primarily stems from an increase of both ends of the marginal spectrum, resulting in more people owing very little to no taxes (and negative taxes), a vast reduction of the "middle class" earners and the lowering of taxes in general has resulted in a disproportionate weight to the highest earner's, despite a marginal and actual contribution reduction. Of the revenue composition, more people at the top are utilizing investment income as personal income and are leery of reinvestment, especially on the small business front. This is shakiness is unstable both in terms of economic sustainability and income mobility, but more importantly for this discussion, it is quickly polarizing income "classes" into two distinct classes, as opposed to the 3-5 income groups that we typically observe.

    Margin:

    In 2006 our deficit was less than $300 Billion, and while it is falling back in that direction over the past 4-5 years, lowering taxes disproportionately to the new economy is highly dangerous. Tax rates (effective) as a nation in are already at a 30+ year low and have been declining slowly but steadily at least since Carter was in office (interesting point to the overall conversation, no one is being "choked to death" by taxes, as they're paying less pretty much constantly). Increasing expenses and lowering the revenue per shareholder have fairly obvious implications for the sustainability of the economy. Both of those numbers need to quickly reverse directions (in my opinion).

    Conclusions

    So, based on those observations and some new data input into a predictive model that closely represents the stated structural assumptions and economic conclusions of the Fair Tax documentation (I left a few things out as specific adjustable variables because I couldn't quantify them individually and represent them with a logarithmic variable that closely approximates the impact of those variables in aggregate), I have two recommendations to seriously consider this as an option that creates an equal to or better than current economic outlook in terms of economic sustainability and an equal to or less than 10% worse overall "fairness" factor, which I'm measuring as the negative correlation between a user's marginal and effective tax rate on all revenues (not on a specific subset of revenue, and that's important) staged out and tempered by the increased contribution across disposable income to the non-essential goods consumer markets. Basically this works as a program that attempts millions of scenarios and finds the ones that are most successful at meeting all objectives then formulaically identifies the most consistent and highest impacting variables, and their respective most optimal ranges.

    The Fair Tax Rate: Finding 1: Should be between 31% and 43% (if implemented today). The lower end of that range is dedicated to matching (actually slightly undercutting) the total current total revenue package without any agressive attempts to remove the deficit or work towards getting out of default. The 43% actually gets us out of deficit slightly sooner than we will otherwise and keeps us trending positively for at least 5-10 years, not counting any additional wars (not sure that's smart). Finding 2: Should not be a fixed rate, but should be reassessed annually for two reasons. 1. It ties the taxpayer to the economic decisions of Congress. If Congress increases spending, at least 70% of the new spending should be allocated directly to first year contributions by the citizenry and the remaining 30% phased in over the following 3 years, compounding. Nothing will make citizens pay attention to responsible spending like personal responsibility for spending. 2. It ties the taxpayer to the economic decisions of Congress. If Congress LOWERS spending, they obviously need less revenue and at least 70% of the reduction should be realized in the first year contributions by tax payers, with the remaining 30% phased in over the following 5 years, compounding. The different in time lines is to help with debt payoff and future risk mitigation, etc.

    The Fair Tax Prebate: 1. Should be between $14,300 and $18,700. This range more aptly covers the reality of the new poverty line relative to inflation (which seems to have been left out of the actual Fair Tax model, separate post needed, not really important) and already includes the 31-43% tax rate. 2. THAT number should be chained to social security cost of living adjustments, which accomplishes parity with economic reality AND unites the young and old with skin in the game for how the others are treated by the taxation system. I also think that the cap on Social Security contributions should be removed, but that's a totally separate issue as well. The unification of age groups removes the ability of politicians to try to appeal to one group or the other while screwing one group or the other with their back hand.

    Obviously you can see both of those findings tie the amount that people pay and the amount of the prebate to actual economic conditions. As the economy improves and strengthens, the people paying for it reap the benefits. As it weakens, we ALL are tied to it's fate and thus we ALL have a self interest motivation to make decisions that are both short term feasible and long term sustainable. Attaching personal monetary responsibility for the economy to the tax payer attaches much more of a watch-dog mentality to the people whose money is being spent. This, IMO, will help stimulate an atmosphere of Congress working for the people REALLY DAMN QUICK.

    The numbers generated by the model create an economically sustainable and modernized plan for national economic self sufficiency and, depending on which end of each numerical spectrum you choose, are between -2% and 9% more regressive (in aggregate) than the current standard, although I will admit it was impossible to make that 2-9% evenly distributed across all levels, we're talking about deviation in r squared, not necessarily a steady increase or decrease across every single dollar earned. Usually the different between the poorest and the middle is more stark than the difference between the wealthiest and the middle. That's true in the original model as well, but thought I'd call it out that I was not able to change that, but only to mitigate it somewhat. I did lower the "fairness factor" from approximately 17% to between -2% and 9%.
    NoYankees44 likes this.
    01-08-2014 05:28 AM
  7. anon8126715's Avatar
    When you start earning such high salaries, let's see if you have the same feelings. The people at the top didn't just fall into money. They had to work to get there. Saying the rich should feel ok giving up more like that is nothing more than an emotional ploy by people that don't know what it takes to be on top. So they have no business deciding what's an acceptable amount of taxation on someone richer than them.
    The argument that being rich means you're a hard worker is about as naive a statement as claiming that you're lazy if you're poor. I guarantee you that the average Walmart employee works harder than ANY Walmart family member has ever worked in their life. As far as I'm concerned you lose all credibility when you throw out such a blanket statement.

    While I don't make the millions that some people do, I make a decent wage, went to school full time while working full time (84 hour work weeks during mid-terms one semester comes to mind), I don't for one second think that my current situation is better than another guy's situation necessarily just because I worked harder. Do you actually think someone like Donald Trump or Paris Hilton worked that much harder than everyone else to make the money they make?
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-08-2014 06:59 AM
  8. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The argument that being rich means you're a hard worker is about as naive a statement as claiming that you're lazy if you're poor. I guarantee you that the average Walmart employee works harder than ANY Walmart family member has ever worked in their life. As far as I'm concerned you lose all credibility when you throw out such a blanket statement.

    While I don't make the millions that some people do, I make a decent wage, went to school full time while working full time (84 hour work weeks during mid-terms one semester comes to mind), I don't for one second think that my current situation is better than another guy's situation necessarily just because I worked harder. Do you actually think someone like Donald Trump or Paris Hilton worked that much harder than everyone else to make the money they make?
    It makes no difference how or why someone does or does not have money. YOU have no right to say someone does or does not deserve anything. The only wealth you have control of is your own. Wealth is made all kinds of ways. Hard work, good ideas, and dumb luck just to name a few. No matter how it is made, it is still made. Then it is passed down to whoever the wealth makers want it to be passed down to. And guess what, YOU have no right to judge the people that inherit wealth either. It is their wealth now and none of your or anyone else's concern.

    If we really wanted to apply your logic, there would be no inheritance. All children would be taken away from their parents at birth and given the exact same conditions at life. When someone dies, all the wealth they have would be given to the government. I mean that would keep their good for nothing children that i am sure never ever worked a day in their life and have no accomplishments from getting it right? Children of successful people are always lazy and good for nothing right? This is what your logic would dictate.
    01-08-2014 07:24 AM
  9. msndrstood's Avatar
    I apologize for taking so long to kick this out, but it took a bit of time to reproduce their model and then figure out how to narrow it down to only two of the most impact variables without changing the underlying structure, such as what goods/services are taxed and in what way.

    Expenses
    :

    So there are some revenue reduction assumptions in the original aside from the removal of the IRS, etc. that amount to roughly a 3% reduction in total expenditure from 2006-ish levels, and rather than decrease expenses have raised by about 30%. This drives two necessary modifications in the model. 1. The revenue must be much higher in order to maintain the decline of the deficit towards eventual surplus/debt repayment 2. Long term obligations in forbearance should be represented in their entirety in the first stage of budget the budget roll-out to prevent "surprises" like 2006-2008's balloon payment of war-chest obligations and bailouts. At minimum we should have a large factor of revenue dedicated to risk, weighted by likelihood and if we don't spend it, good, that's a surplus.

    Revenue:

    2006 also is the high point of US revenue, it fell sharply at the beginning of the recession and is just now getting back to that level. Much more of the tax revenue is coming from the top of the payer base than it had previously, which primarily stems from an increase of both ends of the marginal spectrum, resulting in more people owing very little to no taxes (and negative taxes), a vast reduction of the "middle class" earners and the lowering of taxes in general has resulted in a disproportionate weight to the highest earner's, despite a marginal and actual contribution reduction. Of the revenue composition, more people at the top are utilizing investment income as personal income and are leery of reinvestment, especially on the small business front. This is shakiness is unstable both in terms of economic sustainability and income mobility, but more importantly for this discussion, it is quickly polarizing income "classes" into two distinct classes, as opposed to the 3-5 income groups that we typically observe.

    Margin:

    In 2006 our deficit was less than $300 Billion, and while it is falling back in that direction over the past 4-5 years, lowering taxes disproportionately to the new economy is highly dangerous. Tax rates (effective) as a nation in are already at a 30+ year low and have been declining slowly but steadily at least since Carter was in office (interesting point to the overall conversation, no one is being "choked to death" by taxes, as they're paying less pretty much constantly). Increasing expenses and lowering the revenue per shareholder have fairly obvious implications for the sustainability of the economy. Both of those numbers need to quickly reverse directions (in my opinion).

    Conclusions

    So, based on those observations and some new data input into a predictive model that closely represents the stated structural assumptions and economic conclusions of the Fair Tax documentation (I left a few things out as specific adjustable variables because I couldn't quantify them individually and represent them with a logarithmic variable that closely approximates the impact of those variables in aggregate), I have two recommendations to seriously consider this as an option that creates an equal to or better than current economic outlook in terms of economic sustainability and an equal to or less than 10% worse overall "fairness" factor, which I'm measuring as the negative correlation between a user's marginal and effective tax rate on all revenues (not on a specific subset of revenue, and that's important) staged out and tempered by the increased contribution across disposable income to the non-essential goods consumer markets. Basically this works as a program that attempts millions of scenarios and finds the ones that are most successful at meeting all objectives then formulaically identifies the most consistent and highest impacting variables, and their respective most optimal ranges.

    The Fair Tax Rate: Finding 1: Should be between 31% and 43% (if implemented today). The lower end of that range is dedicated to matching (actually slightly undercutting) the total current total revenue package without any agressive attempts to remove the deficit or work towards getting out of default. The 43% actually gets us out of deficit slightly sooner than we will otherwise and keeps us trending positively for at least 5-10 years, not counting any additional wars (not sure that's smart). Finding 2: Should not be a fixed rate, but should be reassessed annually for two reasons. 1. It ties the taxpayer to the economic decisions of Congress. If Congress increases spending, at least 70% of the new spending should be allocated directly to first year contributions by the citizenry and the remaining 30% phased in over the following 3 years, compounding. Nothing will make citizens pay attention to responsible spending like personal responsibility for spending. 2. It ties the taxpayer to the economic decisions of Congress. If Congress LOWERS spending, they obviously need less revenue and at least 70% of the reduction should be realized in the first year contributions by tax payers, with the remaining 30% phased in over the following 5 years, compounding. The different in time lines is to help with debt payoff and future risk mitigation, etc.

    The Fair Tax Prebate: 1. Should be between $14,300 and $18,700. This range more aptly covers the reality of the new poverty line relative to inflation (which seems to have been left out of the actual Fair Tax model, separate post needed, not really important) and already includes the 31-43% tax rate. 2. THAT number should be chained to social security cost of living adjustments, which accomplishes parity with economic reality AND unites the young and old with skin in the game for how the others are treated by the taxation system. I also think that the cap on Social Security contributions should be removed, but that's a totally separate issue as well. The unification of age groups removes the ability of politicians to try to appeal to one group or the other while screwing one group or the other with their back hand.

    Obviously you can see both of those findings tie the amount that people pay and the amount of the prebate to actual economic conditions. As the economy improves and strengthens, the people paying for it reap the benefits. As it weakens, we ALL are tied to it's fate and thus we ALL have a self interest motivation to make decisions that are both short term feasible and long term sustainable. Attaching personal monetary responsibility for the economy to the tax payer attaches much more of a watch-dog mentality to the people whose money is being spent. This, IMO, will help stimulate an atmosphere of Congress working for the people REALLY DAMN QUICK.

    The numbers generated by the model create an economically sustainable and modernized plan for national economic self sufficiency and, depending on which end of each numerical spectrum you choose, are between -2% and 9% more regressive (in aggregate) than the current standard, although I will admit it was impossible to make that 2-9% evenly distributed across all levels, we're talking about deviation in r squared, not necessarily a steady increase or decrease across every single dollar earned. Usually the different between the poorest and the middle is more stark than the difference between the wealthiest and the middle. That's true in the original model as well, but thought I'd call it out that I was not able to change that, but only to mitigate it somewhat. I did lower the "fairness factor" from approximately 17% to between -2% and 9%.
    You should have been a professor.

    That was the equivalent to 1 semester and 3 credits.

    Sent via The Big, Bad, Beautiful Note 3
    01-08-2014 07:35 AM
  10. SteveISU's Avatar
    Make it simple. I make 10 billion, I pay the government 1 billion. I make $10, I pay the government $1.
    01-08-2014 10:09 AM
  11. Mooncatt's Avatar
    The argument that being rich means you're a hard worker is about as naive a statement as claiming that you're lazy if you're poor. I guarantee you that the average Walmart employee works harder than ANY Walmart family member has ever worked in their life. As far as I'm concerned you lose all credibility when you throw out such a blanket statement.
    Let me rephrase that then. The people at the top, generally speaking, don't work hard. They do the hard work. It's analogous to someone wailing away at a spike with a little hammer vs someone that figured out how to build a better hammer that can drive it in with one strike.

    To NothingIsTrue:

    First, let me say your work is greatly appreciated. I may not understand everything in some of your posts, but I generally get the gist of it. I'll address a few things from your latest results.

    The Fair Tax rate, when you said 31-43%, did you mean that as the inclusive or exclusive rate? The plan's original 22-23% rate is inclusive, but the corresponding exclusive rate is about 33%. Since I know some detractors try to use that to sway people from it, I figured it deserves clarifying. With spending going up, I could understand a rise in the rate, all other things being equal.

    Rate finding 2. The rate can be adjusted as needed, plus the rate will be listed on your sales receipts just like regular sales taxes. Any attempt by congress to change it will be immediately noticed by everyone, thus allowing us to easily hold them accountable on increasing spending.

    Prebate finding 1. The prebate is tied to the government's poverty line and self adjusts. Whether or not the poverty line itself should be adjusted could be up for debate I guess.

    Prebate finding 2. The law has a formula in it to ensure solvency of Social Security when determining the rate, even though SS itself would be funded from the general fund. And since it's now part of the sales tax, the cap on SS contributions is effectively removed, as well as being funded by tourists and the underground economy workers that don't currently contribute.

    As a side note, I was listening to the audio book on this again and picked up on something I forgot. All the talk on the rate was in regards to first year implementation. The economists studying this were fully expecting that as the economy improves under the plan, that the rate could drop another point or two going forward. Not sure if that was something you considered, but figured worth mentioning in case it changed anything for you.
    01-08-2014 03:32 PM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    As a side note, I was listening to the audio book on this again and picked up on something I forgot. All the talk on the rate was in regards to first year implementation. The economists studying this were fully expecting that as the economy improves under the plan, that the rate could drop another point or two going forward. Not sure if that was something you considered, but figured worth mentioning in case it changed anything for you.
    I imagine that a once stabilized and circumstances permit that the public would demand that an improved economy be saddled with a lowering of wasteful spending to try to get their personal tax rates as low as possible. If we started at 43%, I'd assume it'd be 25% within a decade and if started at 23% I'd expect it to be 16-18% within a decade, etc. Obviously it has to meet expenditures, but there's no reason expenditures cannot be brought into line with the spending wishes of those carrying the bill.

    As for the earlier notes:

    I'm 95% sure it's inclusive, I didn't change any assumptions of theirs that were not numerical differences created by the gap in time.

    My comment about social security contribution caps has to do with current state, not this plan. This plan's methodology of widening the contributing population seems to be much better.

    Also, the 12-18k prebate is not based on the poverty line directly, but tied to it loosely as both are calculated by a factor of cost of living adjustments, as is social security, etc. I'm directly linking those to solidify an interest across populations.

    Also, 12-18k is not a generic number, it's based on what it takes to get the "fairness" factor into line with the highly increased rate of tax (31-43%), and it's also just based on the example of 5.x k that they use for the generic family in many examples. It'd still be based on family size, etc, I'm just saying it's approximately 2-3x too low if the tax rate were increased to meet current expenses.

    Realistically, if taxes go down, it should go down, and if taxes go up, it should go up. They had that built into their plan too.
    01-08-2014 03:43 PM
  13. anon8126715's Avatar
    It makes no difference how or why someone does or does not have money. YOU have no right to say someone does or does not deserve anything. The only wealth you have control of is your own. Wealth is made all kinds of ways. Hard work, good ideas, and dumb luck just to name a few. No matter how it is made, it is still made. Then it is passed down to whoever the wealth makers want it to be passed down to. And guess what, YOU have no right to judge the people that inherit wealth either. It is their wealth now and none of your or anyone else's concern.

    If we really wanted to apply your logic, there would be no inheritance. All children would be taken away from their parents at birth and given the exact same conditions at life. When someone dies, all the wealth they have would be given to the government. I mean that would keep their good for nothing children that i am sure never ever worked a day in their life and have no accomplishments from getting it right? Children of successful people are always lazy and good for nothing right? This is what your logic would dictate.

    I'm not going to nitpick, but I sure hope you didn't post in the Conscience Clause that you think the Pharmacist is fine by not dispensing birth control, and I sure hope that you're pro-choice as well. If not then maybe you need to evaluate why you think it's ok to judge one group of people but not another group of people.

    I personally don't care how someone got wealthy if it was done legally, however if a CEO of a large company is going to lay off his/her people because he/she thinks he/she can make him/her and his/her shareholders richer, then the people that are profiting at the cost of other peoples' livelihoods being lost need to be taxed to help pay for programs that pay a VERY MODEST amount of money per week to these people that have been displaced. Have you ever thought that this might actually curb big companies laying off its employees because they want a better bottom line?
    palandri likes this.
    01-08-2014 06:29 PM
  14. NoYankees44's Avatar
    I'm not going to nitpick, but I sure hope you didn't post in the Conscience Clause that you think the Pharmacist is fine by not dispensing birth control, and I sure hope that you're pro-choice as well. If not then maybe you need to evaluate why you think it's ok to judge one group of people but not another group of people.

    I personally don't care how someone got wealthy if it was done legally, however if a CEO of a large company is going to lay off his/her people because he/she thinks he/she can make him/her and his/her shareholders richer, then the people that are profiting at the cost of other peoples' livelihoods being lost need to be taxed to help pay for programs that pay a VERY MODEST amount of money per week to these people that have been displaced. Have you ever thought that this might actually curb big companies laying off its employees because they want a better bottom line?
    Pharmacy owners should the right to choose what the store that they own sells. Just Lake every other store owner that chooses what products go in their stores.

    If you get an abortion, you are making to choice to take that child's life away. Thus infringing on their right to live.

    The owner of a company is giving those people jobs. What the owner does with his or her business is up to them. If they want to lay off 10000 people, that is their freedom to do so if they choose. No matter what the reason.

    Your policy would work both ways. Companies would also NOT hire people they could do without in case they may have to later get rid of them.

    I work for a global company that has never in its history of 65+ years laid off a permanent employee. But if they came to me tomorrow and told me they were going to have to let me go with no explanation, I would thank them whole heartedly for the opportunity and never say an ill word about them or expect any sort of unemployment check. If you cannot say that about the company you work for, I would be looking for a new company.
    01-08-2014 06:44 PM
  15. anon8126715's Avatar
    Pharmacy owners should the right to choose what the store that they own sells. Just Lake every other store owner that chooses what products go in their stores.

    If you get an abortion, you are making to choice to take that child's life away. Thus infringing on their right to live.

    The owner of a company is giving those people jobs. What the owner does with his or her business is up to them. If they want to lay off 10000 people, that is their freedom to do so if they choose. No matter what the reason.

    Your policy would work both ways. Companies would also NOT hire people they could do without in case they may have to later get rid of them.

    I work for a global company that has never in its history of 65+ years laid off a permanent employee. But if they came to me tomorrow and told me they were going to have to let me go with no explanation, I would thank them whole heartedly for the opportunity and never say an ill word about them or expect any sort of unemployment check. If you cannot say that about the company you work for, I would be looking for a new company.
    The problem is mostly greed. Not every company's management team has its employees' best interest at heart. You working for a company that understands that profits shouldn't come at the expense of peoples' livelihood doesn't change the fact that not all companies have that culture. Look at the CEO of Costco, his company is a direct competitor of Sams club and yet can afford to pay its employees around double (with good benefits) what Sams pays its employees. Why do you suppose that is (Hint: Go see how much the CEO of each company pays him/her self)?

    I personally don't care if you feel the need to put the obscenely wealthy up on a pedestal. Although, I always marvel at how people will defend them to the death despite the fact that they will most likely never be part of that club despite their delusions -- And don't kid yourself, if you have millions upon millions in the bank you'd most likely be jet setting and enjoying your millions, not discussing Pharmacists and who gets taxed what on the internet. I see it like I see a sickness. When I see a morbidly obese person, I don't think to myself "that person could use more food". I see someone that's using food for the wrong reasons. We need to view the obscenely wealthy in the same manner, especially when there are so many people in this world that die each day because they lack the basic human necessities. Although, there are too many of us that aspire to be obscenely rich. Materialism seems to be the driving force behind everything these days. I guess that might help explain why our society is materialistically wealthy, but morally bankrupt. Defend it if you must, but you'll never convince me that it's right.
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-09-2014 06:33 AM
  16. NoYankees44's Avatar
    The problem is mostly greed. Not every company's management team has its employees' best interest at heart. You working for a company that understands that profits shouldn't come at the expense of peoples' livelihood doesn't change the fact that not all companies have that culture. Look at the CEO of Costco, his company is a direct competitor of Sams club and yet can afford to pay its employees around double (with good benefits) what Sams pays its employees. Why do you suppose that is (Hint: Go see how much the CEO of each company pays him/her self)?

    I personally don't care if you feel the need to put the obscenely wealthy up on a pedestal. Although, I always marvel at how people will defend them to the death despite the fact that they will most likely never be part of that club despite their delusions -- And don't kid yourself, if you have millions upon millions in the bank you'd most likely be jet setting and enjoying your millions, not discussing Pharmacists and who gets taxed what on the internet. I see it like I see a sickness. When I see a morbidly obese person, I don't think to myself "that person could use more food". I see someone that's using food for the wrong reasons. We need to view the obscenely wealthy in the same manner, especially when there are so many people in this world that die each day because they lack the basic human necessities. Although, there are too many of us that aspire to be obscenely rich. Materialism seems to be the driving force behind everything these days. I guess that might help explain why our society is materialistically wealthy, but morally bankrupt. Defend it if you must, but you'll never convince me that it's right.
    It is the owner's choice on how to run a company. If they want to pay every employee as little as possible and only fend for themselves, that is their choice, but there are consequences that they have to deal with because of that choice. And you cannot legislate or regulate or unionize it away.

    You are right, unless something changes, i will never be obscenely wealthy, but i have no right to complain. But here is the flaw in that way of thinking: You are drawing a line for what is too much. What is to keep someone else from lowering that line? Call you "obese"? You dont need more that one tv right? A smartphone? I mean the guy down the street does not have a tv at all. We should take one of your tvs and give it to him. I mean he works just as hard as you. And thus the argument breaks down from there...
    01-09-2014 07:08 AM
  17. anon8126715's Avatar
    It is the owner's choice on how to run a company. If they want to pay every employee as little as possible and only fend for themselves, that is their choice, but there are consequences that they have to deal with because of that choice. And you cannot legislate or regulate or unionize it away.

    You are right, unless something changes, i will never be obscenely wealthy, but i have no right to complain. But here is the flaw in that way of thinking: You are drawing a line for what is too much. What is to keep someone else from lowering that line? Call you "obese"? You dont need more that one tv right? A smartphone? I mean the guy down the street does not have a tv at all. We should take one of your tvs and give it to him. I mean he works just as hard as you. And thus the argument breaks down from there...
    I agree that direct legislation against all the wealth eroding to the top might be bad policy, but when you look at legislation that has been enacted that enables that wealth to remain at the top (Bush Tax Cuts come to mind) and some of our legislators' insisting that those policies remain intact, what then? Policies that actively strip wealth from the rich are just as bad as policies that enable the rich to game the system. I think maybe I know why our legislators have no problem with the status quo.... Majority of Congress members now millionaires - Jan. 9, 2014

    I disagree with you on judging how the wealthy run their companies, though. If a business owner decides that they want to dump chemicals into the air, water, soil, that harm our environment, create dangerous products, or provide poor working conditions, or have a culture of greed before all else, then why do business with that company? Like I said, some people think all wealthy people should be put up on a pedestal. I guess I just don't believe that a person's character is measured by their net worth. And I'm not the only one.... Wealth And Ethics Study Finds Rich People More Likely To Cheat And Lie
    msndrstood and palandri like this.
    01-11-2014 01:25 PM
  18. palandri's Avatar
    What about tax cheats. Anyone remember UBS bank of Switzerland being forced to disclose U.S. customers in 2009? Now more Swiss banks are being forced to expose U.S. customers Swiss Banks Disclosure Of Americans, Many More Expected By End Of Year - Forbes who are they? Why aren't their names published? If any of us commit a crime, it's matter of public record. Why aren't these rich tax cheats being exposed? Double standard? or did they just have a Swiss bank account because they like skiing in the Alps?
    01-12-2014 08:12 AM
  19. anon8126715's Avatar
    What about tax cheats. Anyone remember UBS bank of Switzerland being forced to disclose U.S. customers in 2009? Now more Swiss banks are being forced to expose U.S. customers Swiss Banks Disclosure Of Americans, Many More Expected By End Of Year - Forbes who are they? Why aren't their names published? If any of us commit a crime, it's matter of public record. Why aren't these rich tax cheats being exposed? Double standard? or did they just have a Swiss bank account because they like skiing in the Alps?
    My personal opinion of these tax cheats (like Mitt 'the twit' Romney) need to have their U.S. citizenship revoked. If you and your predecessors have already rigged the system to gain a better tax advantage and are still hiding money off-shore, then maybe you don't need to benefit from having U.S. citizenship. Go be a citizen where you stash most of your money. The same holds true for the crooked CEO that has a fake central office overseas. 18 Of America's Biggest Companies Using Tax Havens To Skirt $92 Billion In U.S. Taxes: CTJ Kind of sad really, benefit from the U.S. infrastructure, but then when it comes time to pay back into that infrastructure, you take your money elsewhere. Yes, the rich need to be coddled even more.....
    palandri likes this.
    01-12-2014 09:28 AM
  20. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Two more reasons for the Fair Tax. With no income or corporate tax implications, there's no reason to hold money in off shore banks.
    01-12-2014 02:04 PM
  21. palandri's Avatar
    Two more reasons for the Fair Tax. With no income or corporate tax implications, there's no reason to hold money in off shore banks.
    There's actually no reason to do it now, unless you're a crook. Don't you think with a national sales tax the rich will still bypass it by buying things out of the country in tax free zones?
    msndrstood likes this.
    01-12-2014 03:56 PM
  22. anon8126715's Avatar
    Two more reasons for the Fair Tax. With no income or corporate tax implications, there's no reason to hold money in off shore banks.

    There's always someone that will find a way to game the system. Seems that the more resources someone has, the more they can evade paying taxes.
    palandri likes this.
    01-12-2014 04:53 PM
  23. Mooncatt's Avatar
    There's actually no reason to do it now, unless you're a crook. Don't you think with a national sales tax the rich will still bypass it by buying things out of the country in tax free zones?
    How are you a crook for doing something currently legal under our current tax code? That thinking alone is symptomatic of our political system. Instead of being mad at how the system is set up, we get mad at the people using the rules to their advantage and then want to punish them for doing so. How does that make any sense?

    Now the idea about avoiding the national sales tax is probably nothing to worry much about. To do so would mean they are subject to the taxes in the other locations, massive shipping charges, customs (either dealing with or smuggling around them), and probably a whole host of other issues. Unlike now where an off shore corporate bank can be set up virtually anywhere and funds handled electronically, shopping off shore would require much more expensive stores, warehousing, and their own shipping/stocking issues. I doubt it'd be financially beneficial to try avoiding paying the Fair Tax by shopping outside the country.
    01-12-2014 10:14 PM
  24. palandri's Avatar
    How are you a crook for doing something currently legal under our current tax code? That thinking alone is symptomatic of our political system. Instead of being mad at how the system is set up, we get mad at the people using the rules to their advantage and then want to punish them for doing so. How does that make any sense?...
    It's not legal to hide your taxable income. It's not legal under our current tax code.

    ....Now the idea about avoiding the national sales tax is probably nothing to worry much about. To do so would mean they are subject to the taxes in the other locations, massive shipping charges, customs (either dealing with or smuggling around them), and probably a whole host of other issues. Unlike now where an off shore corporate bank can be set up virtually anywhere and funds handled electronically, shopping off shore would require much more expensive stores, warehousing, and their own shipping/stocking issues. I doubt it'd be financially beneficial to try avoiding paying the Fair Tax by shopping outside the country.
    I said tax free zones. They could create tax free zones where they're hiding their money now. I have no idea why you're thinking about expensive store, massive shipping charges, warehousing. I am talking in and out with simple logistics.
    01-13-2014 12:06 AM
  25. Mooncatt's Avatar
    It's not legal to hide your taxable income. It's not legal under our current tax code.
    Much of it is legal, especially with big businesses. A prime example is income earned outside the U.S. is only subject to our taxes when it's brought back into the country. That's where off shore corporate banks came into play. They keep their money outside the country, legally, and avoid our income taxes.

    I said tax free zones. They could create tax free zones where they're hiding their money now. I have no idea why you're thinking about expensive store, massive shipping charges, warehousing. I am talking in and out with simple logistics.
    I misunderstood what you were suggesting, but that's still probably not feasible. Even if something like that was set up right on the boarder in Canada or Mexico, there's still the cost of getting the items into the U.S., exchange rates, and travel to get there and back if shopping in person (i.e. test driving a new car or comparison shopping). It'd just be too much hassle to shop off shore and save money in my opinion.
    01-13-2014 01:01 AM
108 ... 2345

Similar Threads

  1. Who would like one?
    By Golfdriver97 in forum Sony Z Ultra Google Play edition
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-15-2014, 10:09 PM
  2. How to sync Pc outlook 2010 with Samsung Galaxy S4 without USB cable
    By Somepeoplearecool in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 09:21 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-14-2013, 05:09 AM
  4. What does Sync do?
    By 7ewis in forum General Help and How To
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 06:42 PM
  5. Portability of Paid-for Apps
    By Labarum in forum General News & Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 04:09 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD