dude, you're just as bad as Asguard. Your idea of hiking income THAT much - while NOT increasing productivity one little bit - borders on the INSANE!!! It would create runaway inflation like this country has never seen before. As I've pointed out before, you know next to nothing about economics.
I don't think anyone wants to triple wages across the board. Raising the minimum wage would be a good move, as long as we also keep the jobs in the states.
He seems to be talking about directly subsidizing the poor with the higher taxes, but no one taken seriously in public office would consider that. We have to pay off our debt for one thing. We cannot afford to lower taxes (on the rich anyway).
That isn't uniformly true, Norse. Statistically speaking, the public school I attended on Long Island is probably superior to whatever private school MAW's kids have been sent to. I was pulled out of private school for the exact reason that the public schools in the area were better than ALL the private schools in the area. Truth be told, in wealthy areas public schools often tend to better than private schools. And why wouldn't they be..? Those public schools ccan afford teachers who demand six figures. The quality of the education is directly connected to the resources the school can afford. As well, public universities compete well with private ones. Pretty much all of the the UC campuses, UM, Penn State, UConn, a couple SUNY's, and many, many others happen to be rated more highly than most private colleges in the whole country. My opinion is that if we can prove that even just a few adequately funded public institutions can outperform private ones in the same locales (as many already do) then that is the model we should be emulating. The complaints against public education have emerged only in the last 25 years, when the budget for many social programs -- public education included -- was slashed to the bone by Ronald Reagan. A lot of other programs were privatized. We've been on a seriously downhill slide in those areas ever since.
Prove to me that a CEO on 100 times the lowest wage of the company is 100 times more PRODUCTIVE than the person on the lowest wage of the company. you can pick any company you like but you have to show they actually DO 100 times more work
Yaaaaaark! I just agreed with Norsefire! Asguard, get me some adrenaline!!!! On a serious note now, yes, I think your points are right. There is nothing ignoble, undignified, or in any way "wrong" in being wealthy when you have worked for it and earned it. I disagree that they should get more privileges, though. They have already earned what is rightfully theirs.
so you think that a child care worker who puts 10 pound into the economy for every pound they recive in wages deserves a lower pay than a banker who takes 7 pound OUT of the economy for every pound they earn in wages? Thats what the british study found VI
I find it interesting how some politicians and people say that the rich are being "rewarded" when their taxes are cut. How is it rewarding them when that tax money was theirs to begin with ?!?!?!?!?!?!? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Couldn't you apply that argument to just about anything, though? I have a full suspension mountain bike that I don't technically "need" that cost me 600 euros. That money could have helped children also.
70% is mind-blowingly high. The rich don't owe you anything; so no, they shouldn't have to pay such absurdly high taxes. 10% should be the maximum; government's job isn't to redistribute wealth. It's to protect the borders, uphold the courts, and keep our freedoms in check. Nothing more, market-wise. You are taking far too much money from the entrepreneurs that earned it, and that's evil and immoral. We need low taxes, so that people can keep their money and use it as they wish, to their ends; that's the purpose of their endeavors. Don't bother trying to argue common sense economics with Asguard or PJ. They still abide by socialist magical thinking. The minimum wage doesn't do any good. Hey, sherlock, you know why our debt is so high? Because we're spending too much, and government is far too bloated. We can definitely afford to lower taxes on everyone! It's called cutting spending. A vouchers system would be better than public schools, for many reasons. Though, all of the top colleges are private (HYP, JHU, CMU, etc). It was, really. Jealous, much?
Just more typical "Asguard junk." I agree that the payscales for CEOs and other high company officials is truly an abomination!! No one individual is worthy of that kind of salary and perks. But on the other hand, there ARE people who are worth MUCH more than others to a business - even though they aren't recognized for doing what YOU call work. These are the guys/gals who have the brains, experience, ability, CONTACTS and responsibility to set policy and bring in the money to keep the whole business running - and as smoothly as possible. They can go play a single round of golf (not what YOU would consider work!) and return with a multi-million-dollar deal that will keep your wage earners in a job for years to come. But of course I wouldn't expect a grumpy guy like you to even understand the importance of such things. You're way too hung-up on being the underdog.:shrug:
It's not jealousy. Rich people in the US would not have gotten that way in, for instance, Kenya. So, they owe their wealth as much to our country and form of government as their own doing. It's like going into a store, eating a candy bar, and refusing to give any of "your money" in exchange.
70% is insane and is a huge disincentive to build wealth, which hurts the country. Anything over 20% is too great a disincentive to wealth building. My opinion is that below 20%, people who want to get rich will still find a way to get rich. That is a small enough percentage that people will overlook in their quest to build wealth.
its not just child care, the most productive and vital services in socity tend to be the lowest paid. Farming - barly able to break even let alone make a profit, without food we die Health care- well in the US an EMT is a min wage job, in South Australia it pays around $80,000. Nursing is another one Child care- from memory its around 360 per week which is a little under 19,000 Senior primary school teacher (senior as in they have been a teacher longer than 5 years, not senior students)- 45,000 scientists- The highest level rate of pay in the CSIRO enterprise agreement is just above 171,000 The PM - around 350,000 the CEO of woolworths, 8,000,000 VI, justifiy based on productivity the fact that the woolworths CEO is woth more than 16 times the PM of a whole country, more than 46 times the top scientists at the CSIRO, more than 177 times a primary school teacher, more than 421 times a child care worker, 100 times a paramedic ect ect
Sure it's jealously - just look at this thread. It's THE prime motivator of the anti-rich all the way through. Some of you try to mask it - but it shows through your smokescreens anyway. Your second statement is almost correct: The actual truth is that this country provided us with the POSSIBILITY of making money. But we still had to provide ALL the effort and take the risks to make it a reality. (And not everyone who tried succeeded - hopefully you are aware of that.)
Thanks in no small part to the public education system that educated their employees, the regulation of the banking system if they are investors, the court system that adjudicated their disputes, the roads, trains, and ports that deliver goods, the military that defended the entire enterprise... I'm all for being wealthy, everyone should be. What I am against is them claiming some hardship for paying the country back for re-investment. It's their patriotic duty. What's happening rather, is that their wealth is creating an oligarchy that serves to work against the interests of the common people and in favor of their own entrenched power. It's fine to be rich, but let's not claim that I'm suggesting anything radical: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The postwar years of prosperity were market by above 90% top marginal tax rates. Hmm, that graph seems to mirror the decline of the US economy, doesn't it?
And they do pay, as I said; nobody said the taxes had to be high, though. They don't owe that much. They owe to the school that they are attending, and to the banks that give them loans; and they pay. See? They pay for what they use. Smart man. But, 20% is a tad high in my opinion. It still sounds alot better than 70 or, heaven forbid, 91%.
