09-17-2007, 01:28 PM | #136 | |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce |
|
09-17-2007, 04:51 PM | #137 | |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Quote:
|
|
09-17-2007, 05:08 PM | #138 |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
Nice try.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce |
09-17-2007, 05:20 PM | #139 |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
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?
|
09-17-2007, 05:21 PM | #140 | ||||
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
||||
09-17-2007, 05:24 PM | #141 |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
I don't.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce |
09-17-2007, 05:27 PM | #142 | ||
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
||
09-17-2007, 05:28 PM | #143 | |
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Then what do you think, Spexx?
Quote:
|
|
09-17-2007, 05:28 PM | #144 |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
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.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce |
09-17-2007, 05:32 PM | #145 |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
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.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce |
09-17-2007, 05:32 PM | #146 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
I agree, but the owners of the company don't. The only way to make them is the government, or unions. I chose unions.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
09-17-2007, 05:33 PM | #147 |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
That surprises me.
__________________
"I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce |
09-17-2007, 05:38 PM | #148 | |
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
Quote:
|
|
09-17-2007, 05:58 PM | #149 | ||
UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 20,012
|
Quote:
Quote:
Now, what is your line for "rich?" Who is rich, and who is not? |
||
09-17-2007, 06:06 PM | #150 | |
changed his status to single
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Right behind you. No, the other side.
Posts: 10,308
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|