New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

...at the end of the day what i hear is a lot of whining and bitching because some people think it is unfair that "the rich people" have more money than the rest of us. quit your bitching and get on your life. if you think wealth redistribution is such a marvelous idea, get off your ass, do what it takes to create wealth (versus confiscating it) and then decide if you feel like redistributing it at the government's whim. As for me, I will work hard to achieve my goals and create some small measure of wealth for me and my family. and i will try my hardest to not give uncle sam one penny more than i have absolutely have to. and i will continue to fund charities and help those around me the best i can.

Funny, I hear a lot of whining and bitching because some people are sooo selfish that they think it is unfair that they are responsible to help finance the running of the country and the care for those most in need.

The bottom line is this - if individuals were doing a good enough job caring for those in need, the government would not have to provide for them at all. So, just like communism, your idea has failed.

I work hard, I pay my taxes without cheating, I donate to causes that I think are worthy, when I can. I am not so selfish that I will keep it all for me and my family.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I donate to causes that I think are worthy, when I can.

And when is that? How have you determined what you can afford? I bet you live in a way nicer house than those in need. Why haven't you sold it and purchased two very modest homes, one for you and one for someone in need?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

And when is that? How have you determined what you can afford? I bet you live in a way nicer house than those in need. Why haven't you sold it and purchased two very modest homes, one for you and one for someone in need?

Nice try.

[Clodfobble]

It's not a try, Spexx, it's a genuine question. If you can afford X amount to give to charities, but you think that the government should be taking more of everyone's money for assistance programs, then your extra money is going to come from somewhere. Either you're going to give less than you currently do to charity, or you're going to have to downsize in some other way. Are you willing to downsize? Or is your answer that only the very rich should have more money taken from them, and by your definition you are not very rich?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And it's the people making gobs of money at the top end that are taking away the ability to increase wages at the bottom end. There is a limited amount of wealth in the system - what goes to one person is no longer available to go to someone else.

If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. The owner determines how much the top end people, as well as the peons, are paid. I don't think the CEO is worth 365 times what I am, but the owner doesn't feel that way.

But how much more equal?

Whatever they determine, because they are calling the shots

The richest people in the country typically get their wealth, or the start of their wealth, from family. It isn't a reward for *their* skill and effort, it's handed to them on a silver spoon.

That has nothing to do with the fact that a paycheck is a reward for skill and effort. The people you are talking about don't get paychecks.

You've asked who determines "need" and "ability". Who determines "comensurate reward"?

The one paying it... he determines what it's worth to him.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

...you think that the government should be taking more of everyone's money for assistance programs, ...

I don't.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

Welfare these days is quite different than it was before Clinton. When Clinton was president he inacted the 'welfare reform bill'
Welfare had a term limit on it. Welfare recipients HAD to look for work after a certain amount of time. They got help with child care and transportation.
Welfare these days is actually hard to get and for any smart person not worth the hassle.
Welfare reform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_reform

That doesn't change the fact that;

When the government tried to help, they created several generations of welfare dependant groups, that gave up working and just squirted out babies to increase their monthly stipend. A tremendous disservice to those people.

Yes, they have changed the system, because they started to realize they had really fucked up in the past.

[Clodfobble]

Then what do you think, Spexx?

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

In our society, the guy who shot the deer gets the meat, and throws the gnawed bones and knuckles to the rest of the team.

You obviously don't think the system is working. What is your plan to fix it, if not additional taxes for government assistance programs?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

If they didn't get it, the owner (stockholders) would. ....

And I'm saying there would be less need for charities and "government programs" if more of that went to the front line, lower paid employees, who are generating the income, and can't afford stocks. If you pay bottom-rung employees more, there would be more incentive to get off welfare - you said as much, yourself.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Then what do you think, Spexx?



You obviously don't think the system is working. What is your plan to fix it, if not additional taxes for government assistance programs?

The rich folks should not keep as much. They can pay their employees more, improve the employees working conditions, hire more employees, lower the price of their product/service, improve its value without raising the price, etc. Any of these things would help to get people off of welfare, or no longer need the help of charities.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

That surprises me.

[DanaC]

I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.

Good choice. Beyond instituting minimum wage legislation, safety at work, protection from unfair practices and finding a tax balance the electorate as a whole is prepared to accept, there's not much a government can do to force greater equity within the private sectors. Even those things are only things governments tend to push because unions are pushing them.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

The rich folks should not keep as much.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Or is your answer that only the very rich should have more money taken from them, and by your definition you are not very rich?

So I guess the difference that you're not-so-clearly implying is that "the rich" should do this voluntarily?

Now, what is your line for "rich?" Who is rich, and who is not?

[lookout123]

The bottom line is this - if individuals were doing a good enough job caring for those in need, the government would not have to provide for them at all. So, just like communism, your idea has failed.

define a "good enoughjob caring for those in need". Who's standard of living are we trying to get them to? yours? mine? a CEO's?

you just don't get it. just handing more money to people on the bottom of the payscale doesn't increase their position relative to the CEO, all it does is increase things across the board. If the broom pushing janitor (who is important but generally less skilled) suddenly gets a pay raise to $20 hour (@$42,000/year) you'll feel good because now they can get a nicer car or a better tv, or whatever it is they set their priority as. But wait, the guy who assembles the machine says "back the Eff up." If he is worth $20, I'm now worth $45, and if you don't give it to me, i go on strike." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he has more disposeable income and you're happy because 2 people on the lower end of the payscale are making more. Except the engineer that designs the machine says, "BS! if the schmoe who assembles my ideas gets $45, I'm worth $80 or I quit." So he gets it. Now he's happy because he makes more money and he can pay off his last student loan. Uh oh, our government hasn't gotten rid of the alternative minimum tax so now he owes more to uncle sam... so now he isn't happy again. But you're ecstatic because 2 lower payscale individuals are making more money, and one midscale is making more and the awesome part is that now Uncle Sam gets to sift more of that poor sucker's money through the system to help "the poor". Happy day. Except the plant manager says "oh hell no, if my designer gets $80/hour, i get $150... and so on and so on.

See this process is called inflation. For a very brief period of time the people on the bottom are elevated in relation to the people at the top, but it is temporary, soon everyone is just elevated compared to their old positions but you'll have to start campaigning for the people at the bottom again, because they are just as far behind the people at the top as they ever were.

someone was talking about the importance of the worker vs the manager vs the exec. you're right, the product can't be produced and the company can't prosper if a cog is missing at any step. But you completely miss the point that if a company needs to hire a janitor all they need to do is find someone who can hold a broom. Just about anyone can do that. If they need an assembler there are a few less people who can do that. If they need a designer there is a limited pool of qualified people available. If they need a plant manager the pool of talent becomes distinctly smaller. If they need a CEO there is a very very small pool of available talent. It is the simple law of supply and demand. The CEO (the commodity) is in limited supply so he is worth far more than the guy who can be replaced by anyone with a pulse. That's life.