Federal Withholding taxes Obama vs McCain

[white magi]

Alright so I just got my first salary-based job out of college (35k a year). I know I'll be getting a better job soon, this is entry level and I'm getting my feet wet. I'm not really for one party or another but I just have a question about the very high federal withholdings taxes on my paychecks. I've been on paycheckcity.com and the federal withholdings just seems outrageous the more money you make. Basically, I don't mind paying for social security, medicare and state taxes but the federal withholdings is a bit much. Does anyone here know what Obama or McCain's plan is for this tax? I think that McCain is for privatizing the social security system(which I'm against) but I may be wrong. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me more details on what their federal tax plans are?

Basically to put it pretty bluntly, somebody like me making 35k a year, who is going to benefit me more money-wise at the end of the year(what candidate will leave me with more money in my pocket without removing ss or medicare)?

Thanks

[Death's Chill]

Wait, since when does the USA have public health care?

[white magi]

Wait, since when does the USA have public health care?

Medicare is when you're older if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't matter what state you live, every state takes out at least, social security, medicare, federal witholdings and their state tax on your paycheck.

I don't have medical at my job, although they said they could work that out for me if I wanted, but I haven't opted in yet.

[Malhavok]

Alright so I just got my first salary-based job out of college (35k a year). I know I'll be getting a better job soon, this is entry level and I'm getting my feet wet. I'm not really for one party or another but I just have a question about the very high federal withholdings taxes on my paychecks. I've been on paycheckcity.com and the federal withholdings just seems outrageous the more money you make. Basically, I don't mind paying for social security, medicare and state taxes but the federal withholdings is a bit much. Does anyone here know what Obama or McCain's plan is for this tax? I think that McCain is for privatizing the social security system(which I'm against) but I may be wrong. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me more details on what their federal tax plans are?

Basically to put it pretty bluntly, somebody like me making 35k a year, who is going to benefit me more money-wise at the end of the year(what candidate will leave me with more money in my pocket without removing ss or medicare)?

Thanks
Being poor Obama's tax plan will help you more. It actually will reduce the tax burden for the lower 70-80% of households and shift that burden onto the richest. Making 35,000 a year your federal with holdings should actually be pretty low, somewhere around 15%. Imagine if you're making 100,000 and getting taxed at close to 25%. Fun.

[Death's Chill]

Medicare is when you're older if I'm not mistaken. It doesn't matter what state you live, every state takes out at least, social security, medicare, federal witholdings and their state tax on your paycheck.

I don't have medical at my job, although they said they could work that out for me if I wanted, but I haven't opted in yet.

Isn't social security for when you're older? :p

[Deja vu]

Wait, since when does the USA have public health care?

Most hospitals (any nonprofit hospital) in the USA can not deny you serves regardless of your ability to pay. I know when I lived in Phoenix a lot of hospitals where wanted to get this changed cause of the cost of treating all the illegals that could not pay for there treatment.

Medicade (sp?) is for the poorer people. Medicare is for the elderly.

[white magi]

Being poor Obama's tax plan will help you more. It actually will reduce the tax burden for the lower 70-80% of households and shift that burden onto the richest. Making 35,000 a year your federal with holdings should actually be pretty low, somewhere around 15%. Imagine if you're making 100,000 and getting taxed at close to 25%. Fun.

Well 35k may sound poor but I pretty much have $0 expenses so I'm living comfortably for now :). I've seen much higher paying jobs that I know I can get but as is the case with every recent grad, no one wants to hire you without experience. Yes I have seen the Fed holdings shoot up as you make more on paycheckcity.com. I think that's not fair, but I'm just thinking about the present right now.

I've always felt that Obama was an elitist and that he'd help more affluent democrats more. What are Obama and McCain's plans for the people that make 100k+?

[white magi]

Isn't social security for when you're older? :p

Yes both Medicare and Social Security is for older people. You never know what's going to happen in your life. Even if I was making 100k+ a year which I think I will some day, I still wouldn't mind paying ss + medicare. It's the fed withholdings that just seems a little ridiculous.

[Airius Droc]

Yes both Medicare and Social Security is for older people. You never know what's going to happen in your life. Even if I was making 100k+ a year which I think I will some day, I still wouldn't mind paying ss + medicare. It's the fed withholdings that just seems a little ridiculous.

Neither Obama or McCain change anything for people making more than 100k.

However, Obama raises taxes on people making more than 250k.

[white magi]

Neither Obama or McCain change anything for people making more than 100k.

However, Obama raises taxes on people making more than 250k.

What is the current tax % now under Bush for those making 250k+ and by how much does Obama want to raise it?

[Airius Droc]

What is the current tax % now under Bush for those making 250k+ and by how much does Obama want to raise it?

I have no idea what the rate is. All I know is that Bush's tax cuts are due to expire in 2009 and Obama would let them expire for those making over 250k. So that means that the tax rate goes back to the Clinton years where people were making money hand over fist.

Mind you that Clinton had cut taxes for those making over 250k a year. So yes, this is a tax increase, but it's relative to the history of "taxes".

[Death's Chill]

Most hospitals (any nonprofit hospital) in the USA can not deny you serves regardless of your ability to pay. I know when I lived in Phoenix a lot of hospitals where wanted to get this changed cause of the cost of treating all the illegals that could not pay for there treatment.

Medicade (sp?) is for the poorer people. Medicare is for the elderly.

Hmm, well that is a bit odd. Forcing the business to provide the service without assurance of payment. Yes, I know it's over medical issues, and in a life or death situation I may side with them, but in ordinary circumstances, no.

[white magi]

I have no idea what the rate is. All I know is that Bush's tax cuts are due to expire in 2009 and Obama would let them expire for those making over 250k. So that means that the tax rate goes back to the Clinton years where people were making money hand over fist.

Mind you that Clinton had cut taxes for those making over 250k a year. So yes, this is a tax increase, but it's relative to the history of "taxes".

So what exactly is McCain's plan for those making under 250k? I believe you said that Obama will keep the fed withholdings as is. But does McCain plan to raise it for people like me? lower it? or what?

[Cards]

What is the current tax % now under Bush for those making 250k+ and by how much does Obama want to raise it?

I heard this on one of those conservative AM radio talk shows (I car pool to work so we listen to what the driver wants) so take it for what its worth...

Currently the taxes on the top 5% of income earners is some where in the neighborhood of 35-40%

according to the radio guy (lol) Oboma wants to raise it to 52-57%

[Airius Droc]

So what exactly is McCain's plan for those making under 250k? I believe you said that Obama will keep the fed withholdings as is. But does McCain plan to raise it for people like me? lower it? or what?

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/4dbd2cc7-890e-47f1-882f-b8fc4cfecc78.htm

He's going to do all of that with a Democratic Congress. :)

[Airius Droc]

I heard this on one of those conservative AM radio talk shows

I heard Obama was a secret Muslim on one of those conservative talk shows.

[Malhavok]

How much over 100k?

Obama hoses those over 600k (the top 1%) and cuts taxes for everyone else the poorer you are the more of a tax cut you get.
McCain cuts taxes for everyone, but until you get up to about 100k+ though the tax cut is less than 1%. By 600k (top 1%) its 3%

At 100k-160k range they are pretty similar. McCain is a +2.5% change in after tax income, Obama is a +2.1% change in after tax income.

You can find all the tables here;
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf

To cut to the chase, for 95% of tax payers Obama's tax plan is more attractive, but for the top 1% its UGLY. McCain's tax plan is worse than Obama's for 95% of tax payers.

[Airius Droc]

Ya know, it's not difficult to find answers to your questions if you just search a bit.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_budget_according_to_mccain_part_ii.h tml

But if you're looking for an opinion, here's mine.

McCain will throw the middle class and the poor a bone if he has to. But he's only interested in feeding the rich - hence keeping the Bush tax giveaway. He's going to package all of this in a nice "personal responsibility" wrapper, with a "free market" ribbon, and a "fiscal conservative" bow. But the bottom line is that he's going to continue what Bush started - easy money for people that already have money.

Obama wants to level the playing field, and he's going to make the ultra rich pay up. He's not going to "cripple the economy", that's obviously been done already. He's just going to take money from people that can afford it, and give it back to the people that should've had it in the first place - the middle class and the poor. Affordable Healthcare will be the main vehicle for this. You already sound as though you understand the need for a safety net - so I'm sure you'll see the value in having healthcare that no one can take away from you simply because you're too poor or between jobs, or you have a pre-existing condition.

[white magi]

I heard this on one of those conservative AM radio talk shows (I car pool to work so we listen to what the driver wants) so take it for what its worth...

Currently the taxes on the top 5% of income earners is some where in the neighborhood of 35-40%

according to the radio guy (lol) Oboma wants to raise it to 52-57%

Wait now you got me thinking. I think I saw Hillary Clinton on Fox with Bill oreilley(back when she was still in the race) and she said the current tax % is 30% on those making 250k+ a year and she wanted to raise it to 36% which is how it was during the Clinton years. She said that the Clinton years had one of the strongest and fairest economies in history. I kinda liked what she had to say on there concerning taxes and everything else but I know a lot of people hate her. Wow 52-57% is crazy?? (if this is true of course).

[Malhavok]

Its not. It's currently 33 or 35% (250k is 33%, at 349k it increases to 35%). Obama wants to raise the 33% to 36% and the 35% to 39%.

[white magi]

To cut to the chase, for 95% of tax payers Obama's tax plan is more attractive, but for the top 1% its UGLY. McCain's tax plan is worse than Obama's for 95% of tax payers.

Well that pretty much makes the descision pretty cut and dry for my situation lol.

[Airius Droc]

Wow 52-57% is crazy?? (if this is true of course).

There are a lot of numbers being thrown around right now by the Right Wing idiots. They're probably adding in a capital gains increase to that number.

Obama has said in the past that he's open to raising capital gains taxes to Clinton levels and that's freaking the rich guys out because that's their bread and butter.

What you'll hear is people saying "well all americans own stock and so a raise in captial gains would be a tax increase on all americans!" But of course the tax only occurs when you sell the stock for a profit - and all americans own stock in retirement 401k's - not common stock. So if they use it for retirement - guess what - no tax. Just like it works today.

But for the ultra rich, that's like all they're fucking being taxed on is capital gains - so a guy like Warren Buffet (richest man in the world) pays 15% tax today on billions. That's what Obama is trying to stop - and again he's going back to levels that have proven to have no ill effect on the economy.

[white magi]

But for the ultra rich, that's like all they're fucking being taxed on is capital gains - so a guy like Warren Buffet (richest man in the world) pays 15% tax today on billions. That's what Obama is trying to stop - and again he's going back to levels that have proven to have no ill effect on the economy.


Yea I remember I saw this show that said that Warren Buffet's secratary pays more than he does in taxes lol.

[Malhavok]

Well that pretty much makes the descision pretty cut and dry for my situation lol.

Well, that's based solely on whats best for numero uno. Which is pretty much Obama's plan for everyone except the ultra wealthy. On the other hand if you were to ask me what was better for the economy and the country as a whole I'd say McCain's plan. Personally I don't care about Obama's let's rape the ultra-rich and I don't think it will negatively impact the economy. On the other hand we've already got some of the highest corporate tax burdens in the first world and he wants to raise them even higher to encourage more jobs to leave the country. To off set this he wants to raise tariffs and lower quotas on imports. It's impossible to say exactly what effect that will have but my guess is higher unemployment, higher prices, and fewer consumer choices.

[white magi]

Well, that's based solely on whats best for numero uno. Which is pretty much Obama's plan for everyone except the ultra wealthy. On the other hand if you were to ask me what was better for the economy and the country as a whole I'd say McCain's plan. Personally I don't care about Obama's let's rape the ultra-rich and I don't think it will negatively impact the economy. On the other hand we've already got some of the highest corporate tax burdens in the first world and he wants to raise them even higher to encourage more jobs to leave the country. To off set this he wants to raise tariffs and lower quotas on imports. It's impossible to say exactly what effect that will have but my guess is higher unemployment, higher prices, and fewer consumer choices.

Will everything be like it was in the Clinton years or does he plan to tax the corporations even more than back then?

[Spart]

Its not. It's currently 33 or 35% (250k is 33%, at 349k it increases to 35%). Obama wants to raise the 33% to 36% and the 35% to 39%.

That's so much lower than in Australia. We have 48% for the top bracket. Fuck, the difference, no wonder anyone with money leaves.

[Malhavok]

Will everything be like it was in the Clinton years or does he plan to tax the corporations even more than back then?

He doesn't have one yet. But he has said he is going to fund just about everything by cutting corporate loopholes. I question if he can find and close that many.

[Vanno]

Under 100k would be paying less under Obama, assuming he isn't a complete con, and comes through on his promises.

[Vanno]

Well, that's based solely on whats best for numero uno. Which is pretty much Obama's plan for everyone except the ultra wealthy. On the other hand if you were to ask me what was better for the economy and the country as a whole I'd say McCain's plan. Personally I don't care about Obama's let's rape the ultra-rich and I don't think it will negatively impact the economy. On the other hand we've already got some of the highest corporate tax burdens in the first world and he wants to raise them even higher to encourage more jobs to leave the country. To off set this he wants to raise tariffs and lower quotas on imports. It's impossible to say exactly what effect that will have but my guess is higher unemployment, higher prices, and fewer consumer choices.

If he drops the cap gains raise nonsense, I like Obama's plan more. Unfortunately, he isn't easing off on that, and he is going to spend like chick in a shoe store, so I don't like his overall plan at all.

[Traep]

If he drops the cap gains raise nonsense, I like Obama's plan more. Unfortunately, he isn't easing off on that, and he is going to spend like chick in a shoe store, so I don't like his overall plan at all.

I don't see the problem with capital gains. It would be tied to income level, just like income tax, so it would suck if you're particularly well off and getting a lot of money from stocks but for everyone else it appears to me that it would be just like today.

He's also using paygo rules as well, so all that spending assumes that there's ample money for it. If you have the money then what's the problem with spending it on programs? To me it's like that saying, you have to spend money to make money.

[Matriel]

Well, that's based solely on whats best for numero uno. Which is pretty much Obama's plan for everyone except the ultra wealthy. On the other hand if you were to ask me what was better for the economy and the country as a whole I'd say McCain's plan. Personally I don't care about Obama's let's rape the ultra-rich and I don't think it will negatively impact the economy. On the other hand we've already got some of the highest corporate tax burdens in the first world and he wants to raise them even higher to encourage more jobs to leave the country. To off set this he wants to raise tariffs and lower quotas on imports. It's impossible to say exactly what effect that will have but my guess is higher unemployment, higher prices, and fewer consumer choices.

Bingo. At face value it sounds better, but it's not going to work out that way in the long run. I might keep 2.5% more, but I'm going to lose it when prices go out of this fucking world on goods.

I don't see the problem with capital gains. It would be tied to income level, just like income tax, so it would suck if you're particularly well off and getting a lot of money from stocks but for everyone else it appears to me that it would be just like today.

Not only are they going to bankrupt social security, but hey, let's raise taxes on me planning for retirement. Wooo.

He's also using paygo rules as well, so all that spending assumes that there's ample money for it. If you have the money then what's the problem with spending it on programs? To me it's like that saying, you have to spend money to make money.

If that's the case, I doubt he even does a tax cut, since his plethora of ideas is going to cost a fucking fortune. Even if he did pull out of Iraq, which I doubt.

[greenman101]

I don't see the problem with capital gains. It would be tied to income level, just like income tax, so it would suck if you're particularly well off and getting a lot of money from stocks but for everyone else it appears to me that it would be just like today.

He's also using paygo rules as well, so all that spending assumes that there's ample money for it. If you have the money then what's the problem with spending it on programs? To me it's like that saying, you have to spend money to make money.
A low capital gains tax means more long term investments by businesses and individuals. More long term investments mean more cash flowing through our economy which in turn means more people and businesses making profit off the extra cash, and more people being hired to work in the economy. An increase in capital gains tax (at the levels it is currently at) has a directly negative impact on the economy. This has nothing to do with rich vs poor like Airius wants people to believe. The capital gains tax has a very direct and very important link to the economy, and it (along with the corporate income taxes) should be lowered without thinking right now while the economy is going through a bumpy year or two.

Raising capital gains taxes should be reserved for when we want to slow the economy down for some reason.

[HiroProtagonist]

Being poor Obama's tax plan will help you more. It actually will reduce the tax burden for the lower 70-80% of households and shift that burden onto the richest. Making 35,000 a year your federal with holdings should actually be pretty low, somewhere around 15%. Imagine if you're making 100,000 and getting taxed at close to 25%. Fun.

Myy best estimate. with only the standard deduction, no itemization at all, a single person making 35k a year has a total federal income tax liability of ~$3,500.00. An effective marginal rate of 10%. How much lower can it go? 0%? I think one of the many reasons the federal deficit is so high, is so few people have any skin in the game. They are barely paying income taxes at all, so who cares how it is spent.

[Slypieguy]

I don't see the problem with capital gains. It would be tied to income level, just like income tax, so it would suck if you're particularly well off and getting a lot of money from stocks but for everyone else it appears to me that it would be just like today.


Tell that to Japan, whose economy stagnated for a decade because of capital moving overseas after they raised capital gains taxes...

[Slypieguy]

Here is the difference:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco

Notice how they conveniently left out the huge fucking range between 161k and 2.9 million, WTF, great reporting, lol. My guess is those people making around 200k a year will get pretty fucking hammered under Obama too, but CNN didn't want to show that, because that's actually a decent sized pool of voters who wouldn't vote for their precious Obama.

[Malhavok]

A low capital gains tax means more long term investments by businesses and individuals. More long term investments mean more cash flowing through our economy which in turn means more people and businesses making profit off the extra cash, and more people being hired to work in the economy. An increase in capital gains tax (at the levels it is currently at) has a directly negative impact on the economy. This has nothing to do with rich vs poor like Airius wants people to believe. The capital gains tax has a very direct and very important link to the economy, and it (along with the corporate income taxes) should be lowered without thinking right now while the economy is going through a bumpy year or two.

Raising capital gains taxes should be reserved for when we want to slow the economy down for some reason.

Except that a hell of a lot of capital gains is really just profit sharing wages; eg stock option compensation packages to executives. There's really no reason these should be taxed at the capital gain rate and not normal income rate. And S corp 'dividends' are even more sketchy than the C corp executive compensation is.

[HiroProtagonist]

Except that a hell of a lot of capital gains is really just profit sharing wages; eg stock option compensation packages to executives. There's really no reason these should be taxed at the capital gain rate and not normal income rate. And S corp 'dividends' are even more sketchy than the C corp executive compensation is.

S Corp dividends are taxed as ordinary income. They are not taxed at the 15% rate like qualified dividends.

[Malhavok]

S Corp dividends are taxed as ordinary income. They are not taxed at the 15% rate like qualified dividends.

Depends how you take 'em and where they come from. Any long and short term capital gains for the S corp can be passed along a long/short term capital gains to the S corp share holders. If you're in a real estate S corp then yes you can definitely tax withdrawals at the cap gain rate. A hair dresser probably not.

[Nafelos]

Here is the difference:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco

Notice how they conveniently left out the huge fucking range between 161k and 2.9 million, WTF, great reporting, lol. My guess is those people making around 200k a year will get pretty fucking hammered under Obama too, but CNN didn't want to show that, because that's actually a decent sized pool of voters who wouldn't vote for their precious Obama.

Whoa, that was terrible... 161k to 2.9mil? WTF? That leaves out thousands of small businesses lawl.

[white magi]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9fbxpMw4mco


Wow very interesting find there.

I'd really be interested in seeing something like that that tells me how it's like under Bush now. I'm interested in knowing how Bush stacks against McCain and Obama.

Obama will be taxing those making over $2.9 mill $432,521 more than McCain. By itself, $701,885 sounds like a lot so it just makes me wonder what the hell is that tax bracket currently paying? I mean Obama's plan does sound a bit unfair to the wealthy people, but were they going scott free under Bush?? It is Bush that left us under the greatest defecit in American history, so I won't feel so bad voting for Obama if they were going scott free because I'd think of it of making them pay for the 8 years they had it good while Bush thought he could screw the middle class over.

[white magi]

This might be going slightly off topic, but I am wondering what Obama and McCain's plans are for student loans/financial aid. I am planning to get my Masters in the future, luckily my current student loan isn't that outrageous, but I totally ate up my TAP. I am not sure what type of financial aid there is for grad school. My dream has been to go to NYU for my graduate degree but I don't think I'll be able to afford it.

[Traep]

A low capital gains tax means more long term investments by businesses and individuals. More long term investments mean more cash flowing through our economy which in turn means more people and businesses making profit off the extra cash, and more people being hired to work in the economy. An increase in capital gains tax (at the levels it is currently at) has a directly negative impact on the economy. This has nothing to do with rich vs poor like Airius wants people to believe. The capital gains tax has a very direct and very important link to the economy, and it (along with the corporate income taxes) should be lowered without thinking right now while the economy is going through a bumpy year or two.

Raising capital gains taxes should be reserved for when we want to slow the economy down for some reason.

I've never heard anything bad about the shape of the economy while Clinton was in office and Obama has said on a few occasions that he would not go above the rate that Clinton set capital gains at. Was what you're talking about the situation in the 90s? (asking honestly as I don't know) It seems people usually have a problem with this because the average person may be invested in a retirement plan too. That's the part that especially doesn't make sense to me as a retirement plan usually means you don't pay taxes on that money until, for most people, years after Obama would be leaving office.

Tell that to Japan, whose economy stagnated for a decade because of capital moving overseas after they raised capital gains taxes...

I could certainly be mistaken since I don't have the resources to get into international trading but if an American invested in a foreign stock wouldn't their returns on that stock still be subject to American tax rates? The only way I could see how this wouldn't be the case is if they had bank accounts in these countries and never let their investment returns hit an American bank account. I'm assuming a lot here though since I have no experience in this area.

[Slypieguy]

I could certainly be mistaken since I don't have the resources to get into international trading but if an American invested in a foreign stock wouldn't their returns on that stock still be subject to American tax rates? The only way I could see how this wouldn't be the case is if they had bank accounts in these countries and never let their investment returns hit an American bank account. I'm assuming a lot here though since I have no experience in this area.

Guy on CNBC said it, so it must be true :)

[Durindana]

Most hospitals (any nonprofit hospital) in the USA can not deny you emergency treatment serves regardless of your ability to pay. I know when I lived in Phoenix a lot of hospitals where wanted to get this changed cause of the cost of treating all the illegals that could not pay for there treatment.

Medicade (sp?) is for the poorer people. Medicare is for the elderly.

Fixt for you. Once you're stabilized, you're at the mercy of the charity systems.

[Exultus]

Wow it wasn't until page there that this became a normal OT thread. The first two pages (at least on my settings) weren't full of the normal crap. Gave me hope for humanity...

[Exultus]

I don't see the problem with capital gains. It would be tied to income level, just like income tax, so it would suck if you're particularly well off and getting a lot of money from stocks but for everyone else it appears to me that it would be just like today.

Because the right wing values wealth more than it values work. Paris Hilton has more value in their eyes than your average fire fighter or nurse. If you left it up to them they would completely eliminate all income taxes and replace it with fees and sales taxes in order to shift the tax burden onto the middle and under classes as much as possible.

[Matriel]

Your tears taste like gay chicken. Nom nom nom.

[Slypieguy]

Because the right wing values wealth more than it values work. Paris Hilton has more value in their eyes than your average fire fighter or nurse. If you left it up to them they would completely eliminate all income taxes and replace it with fees and sales taxes in order to shift the tax burden onto the middle and under classes as much as possible.

Yea, god forbid everyone actually pays the same amount, how unfair can it get? :lmao:

[Vanno]

Yea, god forbid everyone actually pays the same amount, how unfair can it get? :lmao:

This is a tired and pointless argument, not to mention it has nothing to do with his point.

[BladeSLicer]

It's amazing to me how willing and excited you guys are to have the government take other people's hard earned money and give it to those who havn't earned it. Society is truly becoming rediculously lazy and jealous. Where's the sense of pride these days?

[Vanno]

It's amazing to me how willing and excited you guys are to have the government take other people's hard earned money and give it to those who havn't earned it. Society is truly becoming rediculously lazy and jealous. Where's the sense of pride these days?

Who is to say that the money of one is hard earned and that labor of another isn't undervalued? It is arbitrary. With that said, I fundamentally disagree with income taxes and property taxes, but I don't need an arrogant class warfare perspective to come to that conclusion.

[BladeSLicer]

Who is to say that the money of one is hard earned and that labor of another isn't undervalued? It is arbitrary. With that said, I fundamentally disagree with income taxes and property taxes, but I don't need an arrogant class warfare perspective to come to that conclusion.

Having a little pride (ie not begging for government handouts) doesn't make you arrogant. I'm personally a little tired of people viewing the government as something of a parent that we must run crying to about every little inconvenience life throws at us. The government has gotten far too big, powerful, and intrusive.

And to answer your question.

"Who is to say that the money of one is hard earned and that labor of another isn't undervalued?"

The market is who. Skilled labor versus unskilled labor. Not everyone can run a fortune 500 company, but just about anyone can stand on an assembly line.

[Airius Droc]

The market is who. Skilled labor versus unskilled labor. Not everyone can run a fortune 500 company, but just about anyone can stand on an assembly line.

There are only 500 CEO's on the Fortune 500. By default, those positions are limited not by skill, but by number. Very poor example.

[Matriel]

Who is to say that the money of one is hard earned and that labor of another isn't undervalued? It is arbitrary. With that said, I fundamentally disagree with income taxes and property taxes, but I don't need an arrogant class warfare perspective to come to that conclusion.

Uh how about the dumb ass worker agreeing to work for "undervalued" compensation. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that people aren't responsible for themselves and that people like Exultus have it all figured out on what everyone should make... :bang:

[Airius Droc]

Uh how about the dumb ass worker agreeing to work for "undervalued" compensation. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that people aren't responsible for themselves and that people like Exultus have it all figured out on what everyone should make... :bang:

I'll repeat myself.

If there are only 500 Fortune 500 CEO jobs, by default there are only 500 people that will have those jobs. I don't mind competition, I don't mind paying people of greater skill more money...but I do mind when people pretend that there are unlimited jobs in this world for all the people that want to work. There's not. I do mind when people pretend that there are good paying jobs for all the qualified people that want them, there are not. I do mind when people ignore the realities of the world and the economy, just because you can do the job, just because you have the education and are a hard worker, just because you may even do a far greater job than someone else, there's no reason to believe that you will ever get said job - and in many cases you may not even have the opportunity.

[Matriel]

I'll repeat myself.

If there are only 500 Fortune 500 CEO jobs, by default there are only 500 people that will have those jobs. I don't mind competition, I don't mind paying people of greater skill more money...but I do mind when people pretend that there are unlimited jobs in this world for all the people that want to work. There's not. I do mind when people pretend that there are good paying jobs for all the qualified people that want them, there are not. I do mind when people ignore the realities of the world and the economy, just because you can do the job, just because you have the education and are a hard worker, just because you may even do a far greater job than someone else, there's no reason to believe that you will ever get said job - and in many cases you may not even have the opportunity.

There are potentially unlimited jobs on this planet if you have any understanding of how wealth works.

Your Fortune 500 argument is garbage because there are more than 500 CEO's on this planet.

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to work for less than they desire.

[Traep]

Because the right wing values wealth more than it values work. Paris Hilton has more value in their eyes than your average fire fighter or nurse. If you left it up to them they would completely eliminate all income taxes and replace it with fees and sales taxes in order to shift the tax burden onto the middle and under classes as much as possible.

I don't understand. You just posted about how it gave you hope in humanity that the first couple pages were pretty respectful in this thread and then you start posting unfair criticisms on the conservative position.

There are plenty of lazy people who are incredibly rich but there are plenty of poor people who are incredibly lazy too. Somewhere amidst all that laziness are a small minority of honest, hard-working people. Hardcore liberals seems to ignore half of that equation while hardcore conservatives seem to ignore the other half.

Guy on CNBC said it, so it must be true :)

Not too sure what you're referring to here.

The market is who. Skilled labor versus unskilled labor. Not everyone can run a fortune 500 company, but just about anyone can stand on an assembly line.

To an extent but you'd have a hard time convincing me that there aren't plenty of completely inept, very well off people in this country. I've met plenty myself. I've worked for plenty of them as well. The thing about having a crap-ton of money is that you don't necessarily need to be good at anything you just have to pay people who are good. Has anyone seen that episode of Family Guy where Lois' dad loses his money and they find out that he doesn't know how to wipe his own ass because he was paying someone to do that before? Yeah, I've come across some people that make me think that's not such a far-fetched scenario.

And I'm not saying all rich people are undeserving.

[Airius Droc]

There are potentially unlimited jobs on this planet if you have any understanding of how wealth works.

We don't have unlimited jobs in this country, let alone the planet. Case in point we're losing jobs every month, unemployment increases every month.

Your Fortune 500 argument is garbage because there are more than 500 CEO's on this planet.

It's an example, and it's correct. It works anywhere with any profession, since there are NOT unlimited jobs in this country, this world, or this galaxy. If there were, there would be absolutely no unemployment - since that's based on who's LOOKING for work.

But just to talk this out a bit more...if there are 30 people that want to be the Director of Marketing at Google...then there better be 30 Director of Marketing positions to fill that demand - or else those people will be forced to take something else. And of course if there are no more Director of Marketing positions in their city, or state, or country, then guess what? They're going to be working somewhere they don't want to work, perhaps for less money than they're truly worth.

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to work for less than they desire.

Yeah, in the State of Ohio the minimum wage is $7.00 an hour. All the people making minimum wage don't desire to work for a greater wage. And if there were no minimum wage law, they'd gladly work for less because that's what they truly desire.

[Matriel]

We don't have unlimited jobs in this country, let alone the planet. Case in point we're losing jobs every month, unemployment increases every month.

Go back and read what I posted. Although I will give you some merit that the gubmint sure does go out of it's way to impede people creating wealth.


It's an example, and it's correct. It works anywhere with any profession, since there are NOT unlimited jobs in this country, this world, or this galaxy. If there were, there would be absolutely no unemployment - since that's based on who's LOOKING for work.

Please understand how wealth works.

But just to talk this out a bit more...if there are 30 people that want to be the Director of Marketing at Google...then there better be 30 Director of Marketing positions to fill that demand - or else those people will be forced to take something else. And of course if there are no more Director of Marketing positions in their city, or state, or country, then guess what? They're going to be working somewhere they don't want to work, perhaps for less money than they're truly worth.

I wasn't aware that everyone had to be able to find a job they wanted in order to say the economy or other shit is doing good. That's ridiculous. If you can't find employment doing what you want for the money you want, you can do two things, demand more or find something else if you need money.

Trying to say the system is broken because Google isn't hiring infinite people to be Marketing Directors is patently stupid.


Yeah, in the State of Ohio the minimum wage is $7.00 an hour. All the people making minimum wage don't desire to work for a greater wage. And if there were no minimum wage law, they'd gladly work for less because that's what they truly desire.

Well, that's why we call people in Ohio FIFO's.

[Airius Droc]

[quote]Please understand how wealth works.

Clearly I understand but dislike how it works. You're the one with blinders on. You pretend it doesn't work the way it works so you can stomach enjoying it. Here's a tip, buy yourself more mirrors for your house.

I wasn't aware that everyone had to be able to find a job they wanted in order to say the economy or other shit is doing good. That's ridiculous. If you can't find employment doing what you want for the money you want, you can do two things, demand more or find something else if you need money.

That would work great if there were enough jobs.

Trying to say the system is broken because Google isn't hiring infinite people to be Marketing Directors is patently stupid.

Then I'm extra glad I wasn't saying that.

Well, that's why we call people in Ohio FIFO's.

Kentucky's minimum wage is less than Ohio's. They must desire less.

[Catonmars]

Alright so I just got my first salary-based job out of college (35k a year). I know I'll be getting a better job soon, this is entry level and I'm getting my feet wet. I'm not really for one party or another but I just have a question about the very high federal withholdings taxes on my paychecks. I've been on paycheckcity.com and the federal withholdings just seems outrageous the more money you make. Basically, I don't mind paying for social security, medicare and state taxes but the federal withholdings is a bit much. Does anyone here know what Obama or McCain's plan is for this tax? I think that McCain is for privatizing the social security system(which I'm against) but I may be wrong. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me more details on what their federal tax plans are?

Basically to put it pretty bluntly, somebody like me making 35k a year, who is going to benefit me more money-wise at the end of the year(what candidate will leave me with more money in my pocket without removing ss or medicare)?

Thanks

Just out of curiosity what was your major?

[Slypieguy]

I'll repeat myself.

If there are only 500 Fortune 500 CEO jobs, by default there are only 500 people that will have those jobs. I don't mind competition, I don't mind paying people of greater skill more money...but I do mind when people pretend that there are unlimited jobs in this world for all the people that want to work. There's not. I do mind when people pretend that there are good paying jobs for all the qualified people that want them, there are not. I do mind when people ignore the realities of the world and the economy, just because you can do the job, just because you have the education and are a hard worker, just because you may even do a far greater job than someone else, there's no reason to believe that you will ever get said job - and in many cases you may not even have the opportunity.

So let's punish those who do, those bastards!

[Airius Droc]

So let's punish those who do, those bastards!

How about we get off our knee's first.

[Marbo]

There are only 500 CEO's on the Fortune 500. By default, those positions are limited not by skill, but by number. Very poor example.

...... I just feel like this statement needed to be quoted again.



Question: What if I start my own business, and get enough money to be within the top 500?

Did you think that only 500 companies exist and they are all limited by some special rule to never fall or improve? If I am skilled enough, I'll make it there. What stops people from doing that is good 'ole big brother taking from them at every step.

In truth, there are unlimited jobs. Jobs are only labour that people find useful. I could pay you for sitting around staring at a rock all day if I wanted. It's just trends and what people decide to pay people for.

[Airius Droc]

...... I just feel like this statement needed to be quoted again.



Question: What if I start my own business, and get enough money to be within the top 500?

Did you think that only 500 companies exist and they are all limited by some special rule to never fall or improve? If I am skilled enough, I'll make it there. What stops people from doing that is good 'ole big brother taking from them at every step.

Well, the Fortune 500 is a list of 500 companies based on revenue per year that the magazine Fortune creates. So it's a fact that there are only 500 companies in the Fortune 500.

This means that if your company makes it on to the list, you're kicking someone else off the list. And this is a great example of how our economy works - and how our class system works. Too often (not always), the rich are climbing on the backs of the poor and the middle class. There are too often (not always) a bunch of dead bodies at the bottom of the pyramid.

So I would say that if you were so inclined as to build a corporate monster that made it to the Fortune 500, that you were almost certainly doing so at the expense of the people that work for you, and the people that make your product, and the people that buy your product - in some way - if not a very significant way.

As my example, and to show my work, I give you the entire Fortune 500. :)

[Airius Droc]

Concernig Upward Mobility...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0127/p21s01-coop.html

It's a good article, and more importantly it begs the question...is there anyone out there that will produce an article saying that Upward Mobility has improved?

[Hemlawk]

Between Federal tax, 401k and benefits, Im lossing about $500 a pay check >< I feel like a jackass for not signing up for my 401k 3 years ago. I lost out on alot of money. A 401k might hurt you paycheck now, but it pays in the end. I could be wrong but I believe its considered earned equity. Plus 401k is taken out before taxes, so you will actually lower your income bracket. Your checks might be the same but you should get a bigger return.

I think we are screwed tax wise with either canidate. Taxes will NEVER go away or get lower. I suggest voting for someone that will help the country as whole than how he can save ya a few bucks.

I personally wish Gore made it 8 years ago, or ran again 4 years ago. Even though Bush sux, I think that McCain can fi his mess. Obama probably could too, but he hasnt done much as a senator. I actually believe McCain is a true patriot.

[Airius Droc]

I actually believe McCain is a true patriot.

Jessica Lynch would make a good President then?

[Hemlawk]

Jessica Lynch would make a good President then?

haha. Her story got blown out of proportion. But no...

I'd probably exploit my story to get rich too! When I was in Kuwait in august, I drank alot of water. The End

[Airius Droc]

I'd probably exploit my story to get rich too! When I was in Kuwait in august, I drank alot of water. The End

LOL


Obviously McCain is not Jessica Lynch...but if that's the only reason your voting for him is because of his military service experience, I beg you to reconsider. He's a bad guy making bad decisions just like Bush.

[Hemlawk]

Vote Ron Paul?


hahahahha

[Vanno]

Uh how about the dumb ass worker agreeing to work for "undervalued" compensation. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that people aren't responsible for themselves and that people like Exultus have it all figured out on what everyone should make... :bang:

You are suggesting your typical worker has bargaining power? LOL, that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

[Airius Droc]

Vote Ron Paul?


hahahahha

It's better than McCain. At least with Paul you get a vote of dissent. Same with Nader.

[Spineless_DoO]

Is this thread a fucking joke? I mean come on?!? This is the type of shit Rupert and his friends love. Taxes? Both of these assclowns are going to be in office when taxes are raised yet again. Both of them plan on spending a shit ton on entitlements. Fuck Obama wants to create an entitlement fund for people outside of our borders. People need to wake the fuck up. Your money is not going to be worth shit. There are hardly any good paying jobs left in this country. Your tax breaks are the very least of the problems when in reguards to these 2 assclowns running for office. On top of all of that they have no legal privilage to change it.

[Matriel]

[QUOTE=Matriel;1452375]

Clearly I understand but dislike how it works. You're the one with blinders on. You pretend it doesn't work the way it works so you can stomach enjoying it. Here's a tip, buy yourself more mirrors for your house.

Wealth is not finite... Again you don't understand how it works.


That would work great if there were enough jobs.

No one is stopping you from creating jobs.


Then I'm extra glad I wasn't saying that.

Then maybe you could explain what you were saying in English.

Kentucky's minimum wage is less than Ohio's. They must desire less.

Anyone that settles for minimum wage gets what they deserve. If you understood how money works you'd realize that raising minimum wage across the board just makes everything more expensive. It doesn't help those on minimum wage.

You are suggesting your typical worker has bargaining power? LOL, that is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

I bargained my salary up higher the last time I was promoted...

I love how all you pussies make these claims, but people with balls make it happen. No one is forcing anyone to work for a salary they don't want in this country. Anyone saying otherwise is just a liar.

Oh noes, those private business people don't want to shell out more of their property for you, we must make the gubmint save us...

[Airius Droc]

Fuck Obama wants to create an entitlement fund for people outside of our borders.

That's incorrect...he wants the US to honor it's many commitments. Like when the President says "we pledge X for disaster Y" then we only send Z in money totalling .05% of what we pledged. At least, that's how the proposed legislation reads. The Republican attack machine turned it into, he's going to bankrupt us OMG!

Please carry on.

[Airius Droc]

Wealth is not finite... Again you don't understand how it works.

It must be nice to always argue using the phrase "you just don't understand how it works."

No one is stopping you from creating jobs.

Classic Matriel.

Then maybe you could explain what you were saying in English.

Bueno?

Anyone that settles for minimum wage gets what they deserve. If you understood how money works you'd realize that raising minimum wage across the board just makes everything more expensive. It doesn't help those on minimum wage.

Yeah, pay them .22 cents an hour with no benefits, then they'll make less than what people in China make and we can steal THEIR jobs! You're a genius!

I bargained my salary up higher the last time I was promoted...

Congratulations. I wiped my own ass today. How do either translate into a better position in the global economy?

I love how all you pussies make these claims, but people with balls make it happen. No one is forcing anyone to work for a salary they don't want in this country. Anyone saying otherwise is just a liar.

I call bullshit on your bullshit.

Oh noes, those private business people don't want to shell out more of their property for you, we must make the gubmint save us...

By your logic, the country of Petoria was a good idea.

[Thrill_KIll]

I have no idea what the rate is. All I know is that Bush's tax cuts are due to expire in 2009 and Obama would let them expire for those making over 250k. So that means that the tax rate goes back to the Clinton years where people were making money hand over fist.

Mind you that Clinton had cut taxes for those making over 250k a year. So yes, this is a tax increase, but it's relative to the history of "taxes".


ROFL

And our unemployment rate was nearly 11%

Also, you forgot to mention there that Obama is proposing the same tax increases that the Clinton administration phased in over a 5 year period all within the first 12 months.

With the current state of our economy, that kind of tax increase will cripple us. Not to mention, people are forgetting that if you raise the capital gains tax, you increase EVERYONE'S taxes by default.

The only main difference I see between McCain and Obama when it comes to taxes though is that McCain wants to lower corporate taxes from 35% to 25%, whereas Obama wants to raise it to around 43% I believe (going off memory, would have to re-read it to be exact). You do not solve employment and out sourcing problems by increasing the corporate taxes....that makes it worse.

[Airius Droc]

And our unemployment rate was nearly 11%

I suppose you're talking about the 70's which has what to do with this conversation?

Also, you forgot to mention there that Obama is proposing the same tax increases that the Clinton administration phased in over a 5 year period all within the first 12 months.

You're saying that Obama would take office and just raise taxes day one? Ok, I didn't realize that he had an auto tax button.

With the current state of our economy, that kind of tax increase will cripple us. Not to mention, people are forgetting that if you raise the capital gains tax, you increase EVERYONE'S taxes by default.

You're completely wrong on both fronts. First, it's clear that tax rate worked well during the Clinton years - so if we're crippled it will be better than where we are now (if history is a guide). Second, you're not raising everyone's taxes. How can you make such a silly claim?

The only main difference I see between McCain and Obama when it comes to taxes though is that McCain wants to lower corporate taxes from 35% to 25%, whereas Obama wants to raise it to around 43%

Show me where Obama has said he wants to raise corporate taxes to 43%. Where's that magic quote at? Please go to fairy land and get it.

I believe (going off memory, would have to re-read it to be exact). You do not solve employment and out sourcing problems by increasing the corporate taxes....that makes it worse.

We've been through this so many times...companies don't pay that tax rate in reality. They pay far less than that - often !ZERO! and sometimes they even MAKE money with corporate welfare (subsidies) and that's a fact that's shown very clearly on the IRS website. Using those facts, Obama could raise the tax rate on corporations to 500% and zero times zero would still be zero.

Obama though, has said that he wants to end many of the loopholes that allow corporations to move the money offshore and gives incentives for them to take jobs overseas.

But hey, keep distorting the truth, you're going to need the practice for the big game when Obama beats McCain by the biggest margin since Reagan and Mondale.

[Thrill_KIll]

I suppose you're talking about the 70's which has what to do with this conversation?

Nope. It spiked under Clinton to 10.7%, it came down mind you. The point is those type of increases have a serious backlash from the get go. And our economy would not take it too well right now. Also, unemployment is lower now than it ever was under Clinton.



You're saying that Obama would take office and just raise taxes day one? Ok, I didn't realize that he had an auto tax button.

I'm not saying anything, Obama is. He says (key word there really, since we all know how good a politicians word is) he will institute the same tax increases during his first year.



You're completely wrong on both fronts. First, it's clear that tax rate worked well during the Clinton years - so if we're crippled it will be better than where we are now (if history is a guide). Second, you're not raising everyone's taxes. How can you make such a silly claim?

What? Considering the effect that Clinton's tax increases had on the economy with it being initiated so slowly, how do you think our economy would react to those being implemented in his first year? Do you want to have another depression? And if you raise capital gains taxes, then you are raising everyone's taxes.


Show me where Obama has said he wants to raise corporate taxes to 43%. Where's that magic quote at? Please go to fairy land and get it.

I like how you edited the part out where I myself said I wasn't sure about that, and would have to check it to be sure.

However, I was wrong in one sense, but right on the premise. Obama wants to increase taxes on windfall profits for corporations, which means that you are....wait for it.....increasing corporate taxes!





We've been through this so many times...companies don't pay that tax rate in reality. They pay far less than that - often !ZERO! and sometimes they even MAKE money with corporate welfare (subsidies) and that's a fact that's shown very clearly on the IRS website. Using those facts, Obama could raise the tax rate on corporations to 500% and zero times zero would still be zero.

You are seriously delusional if you believe that.


Obama though, has said that he wants to end many of the loopholes that allow corporations to move the money offshore and gives incentives for them to take jobs overseas.

jobs get moved overseas due to high corporate taxation and government and union dicks getting stuck in them. And raising their taxes is not an incentive to keep them here. You honestly do not have a grasp on how the economy works dude. This will cause unemployment to go through the roof if he does everything he says he will. This is why economists do not like Obama, but hey...fuck them..you know more, right?

And what Matriel said was very correct, in that if companies do indeed stay here, the increase of their taxes will be reflected in the increase in the prices of goods they produce and sell.

But hey, keep distorting the truth, you're going to need the practice for the big game when Obama beats McCain by the biggest margin since Reagan and Mondale.


ROFL

I personally don't like either of them. But we're discussing how Obama's tax plans are shit and dangerous.

[Traep]

Nope. It spiked under Clinton to 10.7%, it came down mind you.

If this is true I'd like to see a source because I can't find it. And I don't think it counts if it spiked to that for 2 weeks or something.

What? Considering the effect that Clinton's tax increases had on the economy with it being initiated so slowly, how do you think our economy would react to those being implemented in his first year?

Was the economy really doing bad during Clinton's years? Because I have never heard anyone claim that.

And if you raise capital gains taxes, then you are raising everyone's taxes.

I don't believe this is true unless I'm missing some key information about how capital gains taxes work. Either way, you were asked how you support the claim that a capital gains tax increase would increase everyone's taxes and you responded with, "It does!"

However, I was wrong in one sense, but right on the premise. Obama wants to increase taxes on windfall profits for corporations, which means that you are....wait for it.....increasing corporate taxes!

I may be mistaken on how windfall profits taxes work as well but the only thing I've heard in reference to this idea is putting a higher tax rate on profits over a certain amount that are made by the oil industry exclusively. Even if it's placed on every industry, it's an increase in corporate taxes only for huge multinational companies.

In short, you make a lot of claims that seem questionable to me and seem to back them up by simply repeating them.

[Thrill_KIll]

If this is true I'd like to see a source because I can't find it. And I don't think it counts if it spiked to that for 2 weeks or something.

You have to look at it in the fact that the Clinton administration redefined how you use the U3 and U6 methods for determining unemployment, mainly doing away with the "discouraged workers" count. It hurts Bush as well though, so don't think I am a neocon trying to defend republicans.

And unemployment is better now than it was under Clinton, and steadily declining % wise.



Was the economy really doing bad during Clinton's years? Because I have never heard anyone claim that.

I'm not saying that. What I'm trying to tell Airius is that what Obama is trying to will devastate our economy. The reason Clinton used a 5 year period to implement his tax proposals is he knew that it would have bad effects at first, and it had to be done gradually. If Obama keeps his word and does it within his first year, it will kill us. However, Clinton did some things that we are just now starting to really feel the repurcussions of, but that holds true with pretty much every President.



I don't believe this is true unless I'm missing some key information about how capital gains taxes work. Either way, you were asked how you support the claim that a capital gains tax increase would increase everyone's taxes and you responded with, "It does!"

We examined the impact of capital-gains tax rates on investors realizing their gains. As the tax rate increases, investors hold their gains to avoid paying the higher tax. Conversely, lowering the capital-gains tax rate spurs realizations. Interestingly, the 1986 Tax Reform Act increased the capital-gains tax rate from 20 to 28 percent, but investors were given roughly three months before the tax increase was enacted into law. In turn, investors rushed to realize their gains before the higher tax rate kicked in, and capital-gains realizations remained depressed for nearly a decade thereafter with the higher tax rate in place.... Therefore, proposals to raise tax revenue from capital-gains tax increases will be scored as a net revenue gain to pay for new spending, but in reality, the tax revenue may not materialize, which will force tax increases elsewhere to pay for spending.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/9/19/obama-pushes-for-higher-investment-taxes.html


There is a reason economists do not like Obama. And the last person that tried to fix a slow economy by sharply increasing taxes on the higher earners to pay for the lower earners was Herbet Hoover. Have you ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930? That will give you a good idea of what Obama's proposals will do to the economy.





I may be mistaken on how windfall profits taxes work as well but the only thing I've heard in reference to this idea is putting a higher tax rate on profits over a certain amount that are made by the oil industry exclusively. Even if it's placed on every industry, it's an increase in corporate taxes only for huge multinational companies.

But the problem is those big bad oil companies only make an 8% profit margin. People neglect to see what an ungodly amount of money they spend to keep operating. If you increase their cost of doing business, they will have to raise prices even more. And since the entire country runs on oil, that will hurt us all. It's a domino affect.

In short, you make a lot of claims that seem questionable to me and seem to back them up by simply repeating them.

God forbid you actually read up yourself on it. I'll spoon feed you from now on though, ok?

[Airius Droc]

One thing that people on the right ignore is that the economy is not working for everyone right now - that we've had 8 years of bullshit economics beating the crap out of people at the bottom of the ladder.

It's FDR time.

[white magi]

Just out of curiosity what was your major?

I went for Computer Information Systems but with a concentration in web administration. However, the position I am in right now is the field that I realized I really want to get into, it is a tad bit unrelated(still w/ computers tho) but a lot of this stuff you do not learn at school or in any major out there really.

It was EXTREMELY difficult to find an ENTRY level position(if you don't have enough experience they don't want you) in this field that's why I consider myself very lucky having found this position after so much searching and the job market being the way that it is. After graduating college, many people still are not sure exactly what they want to do, or they end up getting a job totally unrelated maybe doing something completely different all together. I was about ready to quit and just settle for "any job" but I was persistent and I'm very thankful that this opportunity came when it finally did.

Yes it's 35K a year, but I am thinking of this as "the internship I never had". With 1-3 years experience I've seen plenty of mid-level jobs that offer anywhere from 60k-80k and with about 5+ years experience and a masters, I've seen about $140k on average for senior-level positions.

Why do you ask?

[white magi]

However, Clinton did some things that we are just now starting to really feel the repurcussions of, but that holds true with pretty much every President.

Mind explaining what those things are?

Clinton balanced the budget, Bush took a balanced budget and left us in the worst defecit in American history. I find it a little funny how people blame Clinton for things that are going on right now.

[Traep]

You have to look at it in the fact that the Clinton administration redefined how you use the U3 and U6 methods for determining unemployment, mainly doing away with the "discouraged workers" count. It hurts Bush as well though, so don't think I am a neocon trying to defend republicans.

And unemployment is better now than it was under Clinton, and steadily declining % wise.

I do remember looking at statistics that showed that last part to be true, which I'm not arguing, but I don't think Clinton really hurt employment rates. Check out the second graph here:

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data

It looks to me, even if you measured unemployment the same way as it was done before Clinton's changes, that he still regularly lowered the unemployment rate.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/9/19/obama-pushes-for-higher-investment-taxes.html

That's a pretty big stretch to translate what you just quoted into "a raise in capital gains tax is a tax hike for everyone". It assumes a lot. It assumes that spending will be exactly the same whether any extra revenue from a capital gains tax increase would be realized or not which would include the assumption that Obama wouldn't use paygo rules like he has said he would. It assumes that if extra revenues are needed from another source that it would be a tax that either directly effects the average American or that it would be from tariffs or something that has a chance to be passed off on your average American but isn't necessarily going to be passed off on them. It also assumes that if something like income taxes were raised to cover the extra revenue needed that it would come from every American instead of from those in specific tax brackets. I'm not buying your argument with all those ifs and buts.

But the problem is those big bad oil companies only make an 8% profit margin. People neglect to see what an ungodly amount of money they spend to keep operating. If you increase their cost of doing business, they will have to raise prices even more. And since the entire country runs on oil, that will hurt us all. It's a domino affect.

Isn't the idea to tax just the profits that are above what's expected? I know that sounds vague but if they've been seeing an 8% profit for the last 30 years or something I would venture to guess that this tax would only apply to profits over 8%. It's like a tax on the oil industry's lottery winnings. You can say that they'd pass that extra cost onto the consumer, which could happen, but that wouldn't be necessary for them to continue operating and making just as much money as they always have. By comparison, if you didn't impose this tax and they won the proverbial profit lottery then you can only hope that they in some way use that money in a way that helps your average American instead of just giving their top executives raises.

God forbid you actually read up yourself on it. I'll spoon feed you from now on though, ok?

Blow me. The burden of proof is on you. If you don't want to explain your sweeping claims then don't get pissy if I tell you you're full of shit. Because from what I've seen so far, you are.

[KainIIIC]

Historical revisionism in the making right here.

"the economy was bad under Bill Clinton"

There is a reason economists do not like Obama. And the last person that tried to fix a slow economy by sharply increasing taxes on the higher earners to pay for the lower earners was Herbet Hoover. Have you ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930? That will give you a good idea of what Obama's proposals will do to the economy.


1) it's foolish to speak for all or most economists, especially without any back-up to it. Common sense indicates that you are bullshitting.
2) Actually, the policy of Calvin Coolidge was nearly no taxes at all and deregulation... and that brought us the Great Depression. The policy of Herbert Hoover was to raise taxes slightly and balance the budget and let everything correct itself, which it never did. He was a neo-liberal at heart.
3) Interestingly enough, the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed by the overwhelming Republican Majority.

The reason Clinton used a 5 year period to implement his tax proposals is he knew that it would have bad effects at first, and it had to be done gradually. If Obama keeps his word and does it within his first year, it will kill us.

The majority of the tax increase came with the deficit reduction package in 1993, which also included spending cuts. Apparently it never actually killed us.

However, Clinton did some things that we are just now starting to really feel the repurcussions of, but that holds true with pretty much every President.

funny for being completely vague.

But the problem is those big bad oil companies only make an 8% profit margin. People neglect to see what an ungodly amount of money they spend to keep operating. If you increase their cost of doing business, they will have to raise prices even more. And since the entire country runs on oil, that will hurt us all. It's a domino affect.

Unfortunately, facts and common sense don't seem to quite be on your side this time. Oil profits in 2007 were 128 billion, while a windfall profits tax is estimated to bring in between 20-30 billion a year. And, being the expert of economics that you are, you should know that in order to stay competitive in the market, companies can't charge too much for gas or else consumers will simply choose another company that refuses to hike its prices based on a small dent in their chump change. Oh, and most of these profits, particularly by Exxon, usually go into purchasing even more Exxon stock. Very productive.

jobs get moved overseas due to high corporate taxation and government and union dicks getting stuck in them. And raising their taxes is not an incentive to keep them here. You honestly do not have a grasp on how the economy works dude. This will cause unemployment to go through the roof if he does everything he says he will. This is why economists do not like Obama, but hey...fuck them..you know more, right?

if only things were that simple. First off, our corporate taxation is actually quite low comparatively speaking. 2ndly, our unions are fairly weak for the industrialized world, and 3rdly, our government regulation is fairly weak as well comparatively too. Jobs moving overseas is largely a result of neo-liberal trade deals/tariff rates, the (formerly) low cost of gas, crippling costs of health insurance, low cost of labor/benefits/protection in other countries, and, in the case of China, a manipulation of the currency. Hell, even our tax code gives companies tax breaks for outsourcing.

Someone needs a firmer grasp on economics ;)

More facts, more commons sense, less whim plz.

[Vanno]

Oh noes, those private business people don't want to shell out more of their property for you, we must make the gubmint save us...

That is the Matriel I know, full of hot air and non-sequiturs. Now, please point me to the post where I said the government must save us.

I love how all you pussies make these claims, but people with balls make it happen. No one is forcing anyone to work for a salary they don't want in this country. Anyone saying otherwise is just a liar.

Again, nobody said that people are physically forced to do the work. What was said is that it is very rare that an individual worker, especially those in low skill jobs, have much bargaining power and that labor may be undervalued as such.

[Vanno]

Historical revisionism in the making right here.

"the economy was bad under Bill Clinton"


2) Actually, the policy of Calvin Coolidge was nearly no taxes at all and deregulation... and that brought us the Great Depression. The policy of Herbert Hoover was to raise taxes slightly and balance the budget and let everything correct itself, which it never did. He was a neo-liberal at heart.



Historical revisionism indeed. Even dipshit Economists like Bernanke don't blame deregulation for the Depression.

[KainIIIC]

it's pretty well-established that a lack of regulation in the financial and bankingg sectors, in addition to pushing back most taxes and policies enacted in the earlier 2 decades that would have made the depression less severe. The New Deal and government in general after has thankfully seen through these kinds of mistakes.

[Vanno]

it's pretty well-established that a lack of regulation in the financial and bankingg sectors, in addition to pushing back most taxes and policies enacted in the earlier 2 decades that would have made the depression less severe. The New Deal and government in general after has thankfully seen through these kinds of mistakes.

You are right about policies being a major contributor, but it wasn't US policy that was the problem for the most part. Everything else is just wrong, and not "well established."

As for the New Deal and government fixing things, I can't help but laugh at the notion.

[Malhavok]

You are right about policies being a major contributor, but it wasn't US policy that was the problem for the most part. Everything else is just wrong, and not "well established."

As for the New Deal and government fixing things, I can't help but laugh at the notion.

Depends. If you think its the US govts job to hold the countries economic hand like its in preschool.... then yes US policy didn't do that and it was 'the' problem. And no matter what anyone says those cool looking rock walls they put along the coastal highways >>> the ugly steel ones. So some minimal good did come out of the New Deal.

[Vanno]

Depends. If you think its the US govts job to hold the countries economic hand like its in preschool.... then yes US policy didn't do that and it was 'the' problem. And no matter what anyone says those cool looking rock walls they put along the coastal highways >>> the ugly steel ones. So some minimal good did come out of the New Deal.

Ah yes, price fixing and subsidies did such wonderful things for the Economy in the late 20s-30s, how could I forget? Restricted trade policies were great too.

Great point about the rock walls though.

[Matriel]

That is the Matriel I know, full of hot air and non-sequiturs. Now, please point me to the post where I said the government must save us.

Please look at my post and see where it was tacked on at the end. That was the exact attitude you were implying to me. Whether or not you feel that way, this whole thread is full of crying about that very thing.


Again, nobody said that people are physically forced to do the work. What was said is that it is very rare that an individual worker, especially those in low skill jobs, have much bargaining power and that labor may be undervalued as such.

And I say again that everyone has that bargaining power because no one is forced to work... Just because you or others don't use it doesn't make it disappear.

It must be nice to always argue using the phrase "you just don't understand how it works."

You don't understand how wealth works. That why you keep saying stupid shit like finite amount of jobs. I'm sorry that basic economic concepts are beyond your grasp, but that's reality.

Classic Matriel.

Yes and instead of addressing the point that's the best you had. There is nothing stopping you from creating labor or wealth but yourself. Which probably a nigh insurmountable barrier considering that you're a nanny state moron, but the ability is still there.

Yeah, pay them .22 cents an hour with no benefits, then they'll make less than what people in China make and we can steal THEIR jobs! You're a genius!

If someone is willing to work for 22 cents an hour then they deserve it. All minimum wage does is jack up the prices on everything. Plenty of economicists have done the work on that theory. It's just a feel good solution for people that don't understand how economics work.


Congratulations. I wiped my own ass today. How do either translate into a better position in the global economy?

You might start with something more complicated than wiping your own ass to get ahead. Or expecting Obama to wipe it for you.


I call bullshit on your bullshit.

Yeah, show me proof of someone being forced to work somewhere. Even the military has contacts.


By your logic, the country of Petoria was a good idea.

I wish I had a flamethrower to set your Army of strawmen on fire.

[stalwart]

Being poor Obama's tax plan will help you more. It actually will reduce the tax burden for the lower 70-80% of households and shift that burden onto the richest. Making 35,000 a year your federal with holdings should actually be pretty low, somewhere around 15%. Imagine if you're making 100,000 and getting taxed at close to 25%. Fun.




0% of the first $8,950 of income,
10% of the income between $8,951 and $16,975,
15% of the income between $16,976 and $41,500,
25% of the income between $41,501 and $87,800,
28% of the income between $87,801 and $173,500,
33% of the income between $173,501 and $366,650, and
35% of the income exceeding $366,650.

yeh. sucks.

that's after deductions, but still, blows. that puts me in the 25% range.

that's just the income tax, though.

if you calculated in how much you pay to the government after social security, medicare/aid, gas taxes, property tax, sales tax, TTL, registrations, tickets, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... i've heard people claim that the average person pays around 65% of their income to the government. pretty. fucking. absurd. even if it is exaggerated, it's way too much.

[Vanno]

[/LIST]
yeh. sucks.

that's after deductions, but still, blows. that puts me in the 25% range.

that's just the income tax, though.

if you calculated in how much you pay to the government after social security, medicare/aid, gas taxes, property tax, sales tax, TTL, registrations, tickets, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... i've heard people claim that the average person pays around 65% of their income to the government. pretty. fucking. absurd. even if it is exaggerated, it's way too much.

Well, pretty much everything you buy has a tax built into it, not to mention a larger selling price so that businesses can make up for the lost profits due to taxes. The figure is probably more around the 40-50% range though.

[KainIIIC]

You are right about policies being a major contributor, but it wasn't US policy that was the problem for the most part. Everything else is just wrong, and not "well established."

As for the New Deal and government fixing things, I can't help but laugh at the notion.

And pigs fly.

But even any sober observer would have to admit that the New Deal (at least the first New Deal, which was intended for the prevention of another depression, and relief) did have tangible positive effects to the American economy (Unemployment decreased and GNP output recovered). Keynesians actually claim that Roosevelt didn't spend enough, rather than too much, to take us out of depression. Of course, it was WW2 that ultimately ended the depression.

And by sober, I mean someone not blinded by ideology.

If someone is willing to work for 22 cents an hour then they deserve it. All minimum wage does is jack up the prices on everything. Plenty of economicists have done the work on that theory. It's just a feel good solution for people that don't understand how economics work.


There is a potential problem to the minimum wage when it comes to Employment and Prices, best expressed in countries like Belgium where the employer is required to give their employees a huge amount of benefits in addition to a high minimum wage, leading to more constraints in hiring and potentially higher prices. However, our minimum wage is so low, and requires no benefits, so it doesn't apply to the United States.

[Matriel]

And pigs fly.

But even any sober observer would have to admit that the New Deal (at least the first New Deal, which was intended for the prevention of another depression, and relief) did have tangible positive effects to the American economy (Unemployment decreased and GNP output recovered). Keynesians actually claim that Roosevelt didn't spend enough, rather than too much, to take us out of depression. Of course, it was WW2 that ultimately ended the depression.

And by sober, I mean someone not blinded by ideology.

And some theories claim that the New Deal extended the Depression much longer than it would have existed without it.


There is a potential problem to the minimum wage when it comes to Employment and Prices, best expressed in countries like Belgium where the employer is required to give their employees a huge amount of benefits in addition to a high minimum wage, leading to more constraints in hiring and potentially higher prices. However, our minimum wage is so low, and requires no benefits, so it doesn't apply to the United States.

Right, because having to pay employees more in small businesses, restaurants and other places that use minimum wage won't cut into profit margins and thus force the owner to increase costs...

[KainIIIC]

And some theories claim that the New Deal extended the Depression much longer than it would have existed without it.

and some theories actually claim that neo-liberalism works for the developing world. the "sit on your hands and wank off" approach didn't work historically, and doesn't work now.

Right, because having to pay employees more in small businesses, restaurants and other places that use minimum wage won't cut into profit margins and thus force the owner to increase costs...

and of course you fail to acknowledge the costs to the sacred "small businesses" who are allegedly so badly hurt by the minimum wage - higher turnover rate (leading to more training and less qualified individauls), higher employment theft, lower productivity (depending on the job), and of course while ignoring that small businesses (hell, large corporations too) don't rigidly follow principles of microeconomics, since, as it may surprise many, the world and the economy doesn't operate in a vacuum.

[Matriel]

and some theories actually claim that neo-liberalism works for the developing world. the "sit on your hands and wank off" approach didn't work historically, and doesn't work now.

Ah yes, the I have to do something mindset. Neverminding that doing something probably caused said Depression in the first place. Statism ftw!!! :(


and of course you fail to acknowledge the costs to the sacred "small businesses" who are allegedly so badly hurt by the minimum wage - higher turnover rate (leading to more training and less qualified individauls), higher employment theft, lower productivity (depending on the job), and of course while ignoring that small businesses (hell, large corporations too) don't rigidly follow principles of microeconomics, since, as it may surprise many, the world and the economy doesn't operate in a vacuum.

If those issues are so bad, said small businesses would offer higher wages to get better workers to avoid them. In which case, minimum wage isn't required. It's an emotional response to a problem that doesn't need emotions.

[KainIIIC]

Ah yes, the I have to do something mindset. Neverminding that doing something probably caused said Depression in the first place. Statism ftw!!!


1920s were the period of the smallest government since the civil war. History plz.

If those issues are so bad, said small businesses would offer higher wages to get better workers to avoid them. In which case, minimum wage isn't required. It's an emotional response to a problem that doesn't need emotions.

Of course, one of the purposes of the minimum wage is not only provide a floor for wages, but also provide a basis for both employers and employees as to what constitutes a fair wage. Unfortunately for them, small businesses and average Joe Shmoe will not likely hold a degree in economics. So, if the minimum wage is $5.15, Joe will be informed as to what constitutes a fair wage for a job to seek, above the minimum but within reasonable limits of his needs. Similarly, Boss Larry will decide on the basis of age and experience what to be the starting out wage for a bookstore clerk, 6.50 or 7.00 perhaps. But, now that the minimum wage is $7.25, 7.25 is not fair for someone holding experience, but 8.00 may be, while 7.25 would be reserved for a newcomer. Contrary to what economics theory rigidly says, the small business owner is not likely to raise prices on all of his books thanks to .75 cent increase of wages on all of his employees.

The worst that could happen, as successfully did 97-06 during congressional republican control, was keeping the minimum wage at $5.15, which effectively gave a very poor wage basis for which to offer jobs at and which less skilled people should take jobs at.

[Niccoli]

Alright so I just got my first salary-based job out of college (35k a year). I know I'll be getting a better job soon, this is entry level and I'm getting my feet wet. I'm not really for one party or another but I just have a question about the very high federal withholdings taxes on my paychecks. I've been on paycheckcity.com and the federal withholdings just seems outrageous the more money you make. Basically, I don't mind paying for social security, medicare and state taxes but the federal withholdings is a bit much. Does anyone here know what Obama or McCain's plan is for this tax? I think that McCain is for privatizing the social security system(which I'm against) but I may be wrong. I'm just wondering if anyone can give me more details on what their federal tax plans are?

Basically to put it pretty bluntly, somebody like me making 35k a year, who is going to benefit me more money-wise at the end of the year(what candidate will leave me with more money in my pocket without removing ss or medicare)?

Thanks

In my 30 so years of working for someone, I can tell you I have NEVER noticed a difference from one candidate to the other. The only things that I have seen are things like the stimulus or other 'bonus' checks from the IRS. So really, I don't think who gets into office will change your taxes one way or the other in any significant amount. Especially if you hit the middle class range, which I think 35k is pretty close to. Of course the middle class keeps getting smaller so it's more like the poor and rich, but really who cares.

Instead of worrying about how much will I owe from working, work with the system and start a business. It doesn't have to be full time, it doesn't have to make a lot of money, but having a business will help on your tax refunds. It's all about pushing up the deductible to push down the amount owed. :P

Oh, and make sure if you do start a business that you pay someone to do your taxes so you don't fuck em up. It's worth a 100 bucks or whatever to make sure you get the most out of your refund, and are less likely to be audited.

[KainIIIC]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1031678,obamamccaintaxplans.article

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm?postversion=2008061115

35k is still probably classified under working class, although it depends on where you live. 35k a year will take you a long way in towns / small cities, and be almost nothing in NYC.

Anyway, these are breakdowns of the rough estimate that each candidate's tax plans offer. Lower for the bottom 80% (which you, and most of the people in this forum probably qualify as) for Obama vis-a-vis McCain, roughly the same for the 80-90% range, slightly higher in 90-99% range, and significantly higher for the top 1%.

[white magi]

In my 30 so years of working for someone, I can tell you I have NEVER noticed a difference from one candidate to the other. The only things that I have seen are things like the stimulus or other 'bonus' checks from the IRS. So really, I don't think who gets into office will change your taxes one way or the other in any significant amount. Especially if you hit the middle class range, which I think 35k is pretty close to. Of course the middle class keeps getting smaller so it's more like the poor and rich, but really who cares.

Instead of worrying about how much will I owe from working, work with the system and start a business. It doesn't have to be full time, it doesn't have to make a lot of money, but having a business will help on your tax refunds. It's all about pushing up the deductible to push down the amount owed. :P

Oh, and make sure if you do start a business that you pay someone to do your taxes so you don't fuck em up. It's worth a 100 bucks or whatever to make sure you get the most out of your refund, and are less likely to be audited.

Interesting.. I did in fact start a business during college, a web design company, I have like a handful of clients and i barely get any money from that. Luckily my expenses weren't that high because it was mainly an online presence. The thing was that most people who came to me were interested in huge community-type websites that I just didn't have the time or the experience to do at the time and work was just very sporadic. I haven't given up on this completely yet, it is in fact my ultimate goal to have a successful business in the future. I have some ideas floating around in my head, just haven't put it into action yet.

Do you think this would be considered as freelancing or owning a business? Technically I do consider this as "a business I run on the side", but since I actually do very little business and work is so sporadic, it could be looked at as freelance as well.

[Malhavok]

Of course, one of the purposes of the minimum wage is not only provide a floor for wages, but also provide a basis for both employers and employees as to what constitutes a fair wage. Unfortunately for them, small businesses and average Joe Shmoe will not likely hold a degree in economics. So, if the minimum wage is $5.15, Joe will be informed as to what constitutes a fair wage for a job to seek, above the minimum but within reasonable limits of his needs. Similarly, Boss Larry will decide on the basis of age and experience what to be the starting out wage for a bookstore clerk, 6.50 or 7.00 perhaps. But, now that the minimum wage is $7.25, 7.25 is not fair for someone holding experience, but 8.00 may be, while 7.25 would be reserved for a newcomer. Contrary to what economics theory rigidly says, the small business owner is not likely to raise prices on all of his books thanks to .75 cent increase of wages on all of his employees.

The worst that could happen, as successfully did 97-06 during congressional republican control, was keeping the minimum wage at $5.15, which effectively gave a very poor wage basis for which to offer jobs at and which less skilled people should take jobs at.

Holy fuck that wall of stupid made my brain hurt.

[Vanno]

[QUOTE=KainIIIC;1455973]

But even any sober observer would have to admit that the New Deal (at least the first New Deal, which was intended for the prevention of another depression, and relief) did have tangible positive effects to the American economy (Unemployment decreased and GNP output recovered). Keynesians actually claim that Roosevelt didn't spend enough, rather than too much, to take us out of depression. Of course, it was WW2 that ultimately ended the depression.

And by sober, I mean someone not blinded by ideology.


QUOTE]


So, somehow a Depression that lasted longer than any other in US history was positively affected by the New Deal? what type of sense does that make?

[losinglife]

last i checked, the current tax bracket around the 35k area is actual 32.5k (http://taxes.about.com/od/2008taxes/qt/2008_tax_rates.htm) i think?

# 10% on income between $0 and $8,025
# 15% on the income between $8,025 and $32,550; plus $802.50
# 25% on the income between $32,550 and $78,850; plus $4,481.25
# 28% on the income between $78,850 and $164,550; plus $16,056.25
# 33% on the income between $164,550 and $357,700; plus $40,052.25
# 35% on the income over $357,700; plus $103,791.75

thats single filing. So basically if you make 35k you are getting screwed if you arent hiding enough to drop below the 32k mark.

I make around 40ish+k, i hide enough to drop into the 15% mark, so it looks like with obama i will drop to the 15% mark without having to hide anything. That is nice, but the negative effects the rest of his plan will have are far more reaching for me than not needing to hide a few k here and there.

[Vanno]

thats single filing. So basically if you make 35k you are getting screwed if you arent hiding enough to drop below the 32k mark.



Not really. With that said, you should be putting as much money in a 401k, after maxing your Roth of course, as possible, so it is really easy to get down to that 15% rate.

[Matriel]

1920s were the period of the smallest government since the civil war. History plz.

Wow, you are officially stupid. The Federal Reserve was all over the place like Seabiscuit in the 1920's. And a lot of it was prior to 1929.


Of course, one of the purposes of the minimum wage is not only provide a floor for wages, but also provide a basis for both employers and employees as to what constitutes a fair wage. Unfortunately for them, small businesses and average Joe Shmoe will not likely hold a degree in economics. So, if the minimum wage is $5.15, Joe will be informed as to what constitutes a fair wage for a job to seek, above the minimum but within reasonable limits of his needs. Similarly, Boss Larry will decide on the basis of age and experience what to be the starting out wage for a bookstore clerk, 6.50 or 7.00 perhaps. But, now that the minimum wage is $7.25, 7.25 is not fair for someone holding experience, but 8.00 may be, while 7.25 would be reserved for a newcomer. Contrary to what economics theory rigidly says, the small business owner is not likely to raise prices on all of his books thanks to .75 cent increase of wages on all of his employees.

The worst that could happen, as successfully did 97-06 during congressional republican control, was keeping the minimum wage at $5.15, which effectively gave a very poor wage basis for which to offer jobs at and which less skilled people should take jobs at.

Lol fair wage. The market decides what "fair" is. If anything minimum wage drives it down because employers can say hey, I'm paying you what the government thinks you need to have.

And the word fair is a fucking joke. If you agree to work for a certain amount of compensation that is fair. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to take a job for less money than they want.

[Vanno]

And the word fair is a fucking joke. If you agree to work for a certain amount of compensation that is fair. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to take a job for less money than they want.

If you "own" land, you sure as hell have a gun to your head; it isn't the employer’s gun though.

Agreeing to something because terms are reasonable, and agreeing out of desperation are two separate things though. When we are talking about minimum wage, I think we are talking about the second type of agreement.

[Matriel]

If you "own" land, you sure as hell have a gun to your head; it isn't the employer’s gun though.

Agreeing to something because terms are reasonable, and agreeing out of desperation are two separate things though. When we are talking about minimum wage, I think we are talking about the second type of agreement.

Property taxes are indeed bullshit (trust me, from experience here), but not really relevant to this discussion.

The desperation argument most times overlooks that people got into a situation to make them desperate of their own free will to begin with. If you don't live beyond your means you can make it with very little money.

[Airius Droc]

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to take a job for less money than they want.

Right, if the only job in your area is a McDonald's, you can flip burgers for 75k a year. It's your fault if you don't negotiate that. And if you can't negotiate that, then you just need to move to another state where there are tons of jobs.

It should be easy to move (away from your family and support structure) to a new area - since you have so much money from your "personal responsibility." Plus, it should be easy to find a job in the state because no one else will be competing for those new jobs - it'll be just you! And if there's anything we know about supply and demand, it's that when there's tons of people looking for upward mobility and the jobs that will afford them a better lifestyle, it's easy to negotiate better jobs and better wages.

Just look a Mexico! They have a minimum wage of $1595 a year, and so they come to the US illegally to make less than our minimum wage (illegally) which is somewhere less than $11,941 a year. It's a workers utopia!

[Airius Droc]

The desperation argument most times overlooks that people got into a situation to make them desperate of their own free will to begin with. If you don't live beyond your means you can make it with very little money.

Define "make it."

[Vanno]

Property taxes are indeed bullshit (trust me, from experience here), but not really relevant to this discussion.

The desperation argument most times overlooks that people got into a situation to make them desperate of their own free will to begin with. If you don't live beyond your means you can make it with very little money.

I don't see how "making it" pertains to an individual's ability, or lackthereof, to influence wages.

Everyone has to work in order to consume basic necessities, that is pretty much an axiom of truth. So, even barring past bad decisions, a person must work some sort of job. Laws of the natural world, large populations, and relative demand power in the favor of business, does not make it easy to bargain as an individual. That shouldn't be sucha hard argument to accept. Sometimes people have to take jobs they rather not.

[Matriel]

I don't see how "making it" pertains to an individual's ability, or lackthereof, to influence wages.

Everyone has to work in order to consume basic necessities, that is pretty much an axiom of truth. So, even barring past bad decisions, a person must work some sort of job. Laws of the natural world, large populations, and relative demand power in the favor of business, does not make it easy to bargain as an individual. That shouldn't be sucha hard argument to accept. Sometimes people have to take jobs they rather not.

If someone went for making it first and not living beyond their means to get into a situation where they have to take a "shitty" job, then they would be able to look for the job they really want.

Most people that have to take jobs that are below what they want have put theirselves into a position to have to take that job. Which is hardly an argument that we need minimum wages or other protections for people failing of their own volition.

And considering that I know plenty of people that have bargained themselves into higher salaries, I will again disagree that people can't bargain themselves into a better situation. Most people can't afford to hold off until they get what they want because they again live beyond their means (paycheck to paycheck). Which is still not any kind of rational argument on why we need minimum wage laws or anything else to "protect" people from their own shitty mistakes at the behest of another individual's (or group of them) property.

[Airius Droc]

Sometimes people have to take jobs they rather not.

And work for wages they'd rather not.

In my area for example, there are really two choices. 1) Work locally: There's a Steel Mill that pays very well. There's a manufacturer that pays ok. There's a hospital. There's a ton of odd jobs and minimum wage jobs. That's it. 2) Commute to a large town, the closest one being a good 50 miles away.

I commute, but I'm considering working for the Steel Mill. That is, if I can get into the Steel Mill. They average about 20k applications a year, and only hire about 20 people from that pile of trash. Needless to say, the odds are against me.

I could try to gain new skills, like becoming a nurse. But I wasn't really born with an aptitude to help people, wipe their asses, and stop bleeding. I also doubt that's something I could acquire as a skill. It's not really a "choice" that I'm making so much as it's a realistic view of...reality. Not all people make good nurses. Just like not all people make good Steel Mill workers. Which may also turn out to be the case for me if I get into the Steel Mill. It may be more like nursing than I imagined. Either way, I don't "want" to do either...but I'm willing to give the Steel Mill a try out of necessity.

Notice that there's no room for negotiation in any of these scenario's.

In addition, I used to be close friends with the director of HR for one of the largest companies in the world. He told me a story about a person that was interviewing for a senior manager position and negotiated like crazy all through the interview process.

A one point, he asked her, "why are you arguing over starting pay so much? You can get in here, in a few months after you've produced you can come back and we'll talk about a raise." To which she wisely replied, "You and I both know that this is the only time that a person has a real chance to negotiate. Once you get me in here, my only option to control my income is to leave and go to another company." He never admitted it to her, but he told me she was right - and that they gave her the money she asked for. Of course, she got fired a year later because she'd over sold herself. But that's the only kind of negotiating going on in today's workforce.

[Killuminati]

The minimum wage also discriminates against unskilled labor since it coerces the employer to hire a certain person for a certain amount. Since this happens unskilled labor usually never receives a chance at getting a job. An employer always is looking for the most qualified employee even for jobs which pay the minimum wage. The minimum wage is a complete joke anyways since you it doesn't keep up with inflation. Also the argument that prices increase as wages increases does hold weight if you have a freaking brain. Anyways all this talk about a "fair" wage really pisses me off. I mean we live in the entitlement age. If you are some poor kid from the ghetto as long as you do your work and receive good grades you're set and you will be able to get all the handouts you need when it comes to going to college. Shit, even if you aren't able to get loans for a school you could at least go to community college and get a solid 3.0 and transfer to your state university and get a damn degree. But OMGZ TEH POOR PEOPLE WE MUST SABE THEMZ!!11111

KainIIC:

Also holy shit speaking of ideologies clouding ones opinion. The groundwork of Keynesian Economics is formulated upon ideology as well. So don't try and pretend you are some unbiased economist or something. Keynesian Economics is propaganda. To say things like WW2 got us out of the depression shows you are nothing but an ideologue as well. So don't try to paint yourself as the unbiased one.

Anyways to address your comment that, "the government didn't spend enough money during the depression." Anyways.. the multiplier effect justifies government spending so I'll explain whats wrong with that. An equal increase in government spending and taxing would make people think there is a net effect. However this propaganda explains that the Balanced Budget Multiplier in fact increases GDP. To believe this you have to think that taxing isn't a destruction of future capital. You have to believe that governments always properly allocating resources for the good of society. It assumes that the money in governments hands is used more efficiently than if it were left with the consumer. But instead the government decides to buy some goodys with the consumers disposable income.

I'm not even gonna bother addressing fractional reserve banking since I'll get a goddamn headache probably.

[Vanno]

If someone went for making it first and not living beyond their means to get into a situation where they have to take a "shitty" job, then they would be able to look for the job they really want.

Most people that have to take jobs that are below what they want have put theirselves into a position to have to take that job. Which is hardly an argument that we need minimum wages or other protections for people failing of their own volition.

And considering that I know plenty of people that have bargained themselves into higher salaries, I will again disagree that people can't bargain themselves into a better situation. Most people can't afford to hold off until they get what they want because they again live beyond their means (paycheck to paycheck). Which is still not any kind of rational argument on why we need minimum wage laws or anything else to "protect" people from their own shitty mistakes at the behest of another individual's (or group of them) property.




Does the concept of living within your means and still not achieving the job you want just not compute with you? Sometimes taking a shitty job is about not being hired for anything else, or nothing else being available; it isn't always a matter of being financially irresponsible. Additionally, if your means are pretty meager, it doesn’t take much to break a budget.

I'll grant that bargaining once you have the position is far easier, because the hiring process is full of inefficiencies and grossly expensive, and employers don't want to go through the hiring process again. This is especially true in higher skilled labor.

Additionally, I agree that min wage is retarded, and have never said otherwise, on the basis that they act as a typical price ceiling, which leads to unemployment. I don't buy that they are at the behest of another individual’s property. Using an argument, in your own style, a business doesn't have to hire for those min-wage positions, if they had better efficiencies elsewhere, they wouldn't need to save so much on labor.

[Matriel]

Does the concept of living within your means and still not achieving the job you want just not compute with you? Sometimes taking a shitty job is about not being hired for anything else, or nothing else being available; it isn't always a matter of being financially irresponsible. Additionally, if your means are pretty meager, it doesn’t take much to break a budget.

Then quit and find another job. Oh wait, <insert excuse here> happens, so I can't quit or find a better job. Or create a job.


Additionally, I agree that min wage is retarded, and have never said otherwise, on the basis that they act as a typical price ceiling, which leads to unemployment. I don't buy that they are at the behest of another individual’s property. Using an argument, in your own style, a business doesn't have to hire for those min-wage positions, if they had better efficiencies elsewhere, they wouldn't need to save so much on labor.

You responded to my post about minimum wage being stupid and people getting more money if they feel they deserve it, so I can only assume.

The stealing of property fell more under the "anything else" part of the sentence. Although you could probably make the argument that enforcement of minimum wage is that stealing of property.

[Airius Droc]

Then quit and find another job. Oh wait, <insert excuse here> happens, so I can't quit or find a better job. Or create a job.

Yeah, just go to the better job tree!

[Matriel]

Yeah, just go to the better job tree!

Well, your problem is obvious in your post above. You list all sorts of things that would improve your situation with a bookful of excuses on why it won't work.

[Airius Droc]

Yeah, just go to the better job tree!

I mean, using this logic...everyone in America that's not a CEO is lazy.

[Airius Droc]

Well, your problem is obvious in your post above. You list all sorts of things that would improve your situation with a bookful of excuses on why it won't work.

What are you talking about? I said that I'd be willing to work in a Steel Mill...and I'm trying to get into the Steel Mill. No excuses there.

I continue to look for other jobs right now, even though I have a job that I'm happy going to (despite the fact that it doesn't pay enough to afford my minimum standard of living).

Yeah, I'm really living outside my means. My home cost 74k with a 5.5% 30 year fixed loan, I haven't had a car payment in 15 years, and my only expenses are food, gas, and bills (including Student Loans).

[The Goatbreeder]

Wait..isn't Obama a terrorist? Obama bin laden? Or am i just totally retarded?

[Airius Droc]

Wait..isn't Obama a terrorist? Obama bin laden? Or am i just totally retarded?

No, you're dead on. I can't believe 7 million people voted for a terrorist.

[Matriel]

What are you talking about? I said that I'd be willing to work in a Steel Mill...and I'm trying to get into the Steel Mill. No excuses there.

I continue to look for other jobs right now, even though I have a job that I'm happy going to (despite the fact that it doesn't pay enough to afford my minimum standard of living).

Yeah, I'm really living outside my means. My home cost 74k with a 5.5% 30 year fixed loan, I haven't had a car payment in 15 years, and my only expenses are food, gas, and bills (including Student Loans).

I could try to gain new skills, but <excuse>.

No room for negotiation <excuse>.

Too many people apply so, <excuse>.

It's like a broken record of excuses.

And if you were living so well within your means, your loss of a job wouldn't have had you buying groceries with a credit card.

You're like the poster child for I can't do it. Time to man up and deal with shit.

[Airius Droc]

I could try to gain new skills, but <excuse>.

I have a Bachelor's. I could try to get my Masters. I keep thinking about it. I don't remember making an excuse up about it.

I will say this, it's not free. If I do get my Masters I better have a reason to do so. Right now, I don't have a reason to do that as I'm not committed to being an Accountant.

Also, if I became an Accountant, we're talking about another 5 years of making basically what I make now before it would pay off. So that's 1 to 2 years of school, and 3-5 years of fucking around "paying my dues."

I have a wife and kids I'd like to see during the next 4-6 years. It's not an excuse, it's a reality that people that care about their families have to think about.

No room for negotiation <excuse>.

There's no room for negotiation - you live in fairy land. If you're personally in a position where you can negotiate, hats off to you. You're one of VERY FEW people in this world that have that option.

Too many people apply so, <excuse>.

I still applied, and I'm still in the "interview process" according to the Steel Mill. Again, this is reality. 20k apps, and they only hire 20 a year. Hasn't stopped me from trying, I'm just telling you that even if I get the job, that means almost 20k people didn't.

It's like a broken record of excuses.

You're a broken record of luck and delusion.

And if you were living so well within your means, your loss of a job wouldn't have had you buying groceries with a credit card.

It's all relative. You'll be happy to know that since my credit cards are maxed now, we're going to start getting food with food stamps.

In retrospect I should've gotten food stamps earlier, and not maxed out my credit cards, but I'm stubborn, and I thought I'd get a better job. 1 in every 10 people in Ohio is on food stamps...I'm guessing that number is going to go up quite a bit.

You're like the poster child for I can't do it. Time to man up and deal with shit.

I'm actually the poster child for overcoming a lot of crap. But you know that, which is why you hate me so much. I'm the poster child for why a social safety net is needed. Because without it, I'd just be one of millions of hard working people in the street. In many ways I'm a living example of why you're completely wrong about 99.9% of the bullshit that comes out of your mouth.

[Matriel]

I have a Bachelor's. I could try to get my Masters. I keep thinking about it. I don't remember making an excuse up about it.

I will say this, it's not free. If I do get my Masters I better have a reason to do so. Right now, I don't have a reason to do that as I'm not committed to being an Accountant.

Also, if I became an Accountant, we're talking about another 5 years of making basically what I make now before it would pay off. So that's 1 to 2 years of school, and 3-5 years of fucking around "paying my dues."

I have a wife and kids I'd like to see during the next 4-6 years. It's not an excuse, it's a reality that people that care about their families have to think about.

Nice emotional touch to try and convince yourself you aren't full of excuses. If you gave a shit about the people you were responsible for, you'd have stepped up to the plate a long time ago.


There's no room for negotiation - you live in fairy land. If you're personally in a position where you can negotiate, hats off to you. You're one of VERY FEW people in this world that have that option.

No, I'm just one of the evidently few people that isn't stupid and exercises that option. And since I make sure I'm financially secure, I can be patient about it because I didn't make mistakes. Those things that you think people shouldn't pay for since other people can carry their burden. It's amazing how selfish you socialists are.


I still applied, and I'm still in the "interview process" according to the Steel Mill. Again, this is reality. 20k apps, and they only hire 20 a year. Hasn't stopped me from trying, I'm just telling you that even if I get the job, that means almost 20k people didn't.

Right, the only option is the one where .1% of people are hired. Assuming of course that those numbers are real. Excuse.


You're a broken record of luck and delusion.

That's funny because I don't believe in luck. I believe in not being stupid.


It's all relative. You'll be happy to know that since my credit cards are maxed now, we're going to start getting food with food stamps.

In retrospect I should've gotten food stamps earlier, and not maxed out my credit cards, but I'm stubborn, and I thought I'd get a better job. 1 in every 10 people in Ohio is on food stamps...I'm guessing that number is going to go up quite a bit.

Great. That totally vindicates my irrational hatred of Ohioans for being idiots.


I'm actually the poster child for overcoming a lot of crap. But you know that, which is why you hate me so much. I'm the poster child for why a social safety net is needed. Because without it, I'd just be one of millions of hard working people in the street. In many ways I'm a living example of why you're completely wrong about 99.9% of the bullshit that comes out of your mouth.

You're the posterchild of excuses for why you fail at life. Millions are still on the streets with our supposed "social safety net." You'll just use any excuse for why you're in the situation you are.

[Airius Droc]

So every day I get e-mails with the job postings in my area. Here's what I got today...

Full-Time:

Staff Accountant
Church Division - Portrait Sales
Commodity Manager

Part-Time:

Nurse
Home Health Aide
Loan Officer
PHYSICAL THERAPIST
Registered Nurses

Hey, you're a Network Administer, maybe you should move here and negotiate? LOL

[Airius Droc]

You're the posterchild of excuses for why you fail at life. Millions are still on the streets with our supposed "social safety net." You'll just use any excuse for why you're in the situation you are.

Failed in life? You're fucking crazy. I have a great wife and great kids. Besides providing long term financial security, I don't have a lot of goals left to meet.

As for the "situation" I'm in...I wouldn't trade my life for yours, that's for sure.

[Matriel]

So every day I get e-mails with the job postings in my area. Here's what I got today...

Full-Time:

Staff Accountant
Church Division - Portrait Sales
Commodity Manager

Part-Time:

Nurse
Home Health Aide
Loan Officer
PHYSICAL THERAPIST
Registered Nurses

Hey, you're a Network Administer, maybe you should move here and negotiate? LOL

So get 2 part time jobs then. Or work two jobs. You're just spitting out more excuses on why you fail.

And I wouldn't live in fucking Ohio for a 20% raise.

Failed in life? You're fucking crazy. I have a great wife and great kids. Besides providing long term financial security, I don't have a lot of goals left to meet.

As for the "situation" I'm in...I wouldn't trade my life for yours, that's for sure.

You must have a great wife to put up with your excuses on why you can't be a good provider for them.

Hell, I bet your posting during the day again because you got fired from your latest job. It's everyone else's fault but you of course. lol

[Killuminati]

Lawl, foodstamps

The sad part is I bet you're proud about it or something. No wonder you believe in forced wealth redistribution. You directly benefit from it and you aren't even ashamed about it.

[Airius Droc]

Lawl, foodstamps

The sad part is I bet you're proud about it or something. No wonder you believe in forced wealth redistribution. You directly benefit from it and you aren't even ashamed about it.

I'm not happy about it. But it's kick ass that it's available. The alternative would be that I'd probably lose my house.

Now I have time to find a second job. Which hasn't been easy to do. There aren't a lot of jobs out there that will let me work a schedule that fits into my current job's schedule.

[Killuminati]

I'm not happy about it. But it's kick ass that it's available. The alternative would be that I'd probably lose my house.

Now I have time to find a second job. Which hasn't been easy to do. There aren't a lot of jobs out there that will let me work a schedule that fits into my current job's schedule.

Why don't you save money while you have a job? It could probably help avoid situations like these.

[Airius Droc]

So get 2 part time jobs then. Or work two jobs. You're just spitting out more excuses on why you fail.

I've been trying to get a second job for two months. It's not easy.

And I wouldn't live in fucking Ohio for a 20% raise.

Then why don't you just negotiate to have them let telecommute. Excuses.

You must have a great wife to put up with your excuses on why you can't be a good provider for them.

She's great.

Hell, I bet your posting during the day again because you got fired from your latest job. It's everyone else's fault but you of course. lol

I was watching an interview with Jamie Daimon last night. I found it interesting that he'd been fired by Citi Bank. He didn't think it was his fault. I'm guessing it wasn't.

Still I fail to see how that's a good barometer of someone's worth. I suppose you've never been fired (or laid off - which is the same thing), and if you were, it would be your fault. Your current company must be thrilled to know that you'd never fight being fired for any reason.

[Matriel]

I've been trying to get a second job for two months. It's not easy.

AKA, you won't take any job as your 2nd job. Fast Food places are very flexible. Excuses excuses.


Then why don't you just negotiate to have them let telecommute. Excuses.

I don't want to telecommute or I'd look into that option. There is a guy on our team that telecommutes two days a week. He lives over an hour away. I have done it a few times when I had the shits or had stuff going on at the house (furnace installation). It's flexible and that's why I like it so much.


I was watching an interview with Jamie Daimon last night. I found it interesting that he'd been fired by Citi Bank. He didn't think it was his fault. I'm guessing it wasn't.

Of course, it's always the big evil corporations fault.

Still I fail to see how that's a good barometer of someone's worth. I suppose you've never been fired (or laid off - which is the same thing), and if you were, it would be your fault. Your current company must be thrilled to know that you'd never fight being fired for any reason.

I have been laid off, I've never been fired. I will almost wager that I will never be fired. Good thing I save up for rainy days and get jobs after I lose one... You should try it sometime instead of reading from your giant book of excuses.

[Airius Droc]

Why don't you save money while you have a job? It could probably help avoid situations like these.

I did save money...and while looking for work for 6 months I spent it. I actually stretched out my savings a great deal. Do you currently have 6 months of income saved up? I doubt it. My point is not to single you out, individuals are irrelevant in this conversation.

Now I don't even make enough money to save...so what happens if my company just goes out of business? I take whatever job I can find - and yeah, I'm sure I'm going to negotiate a lot there, just to stop the bleeding.

Seriously, you guys are really out of touch with reality. It could happen to you so easy, and you don't even know it.

[Airius Droc]

AKA, you won't take any job as your 2nd job. Fast Food places are very flexible. Excuses excuses.

That's a good point. I'm not jumping to work at a fast food place. Of course, I don't think I'd be very good at that. I worked at a pizza shop for 4 years when I was just out of highschool and delivered pizza. Best job ever...but man did I suck at working the register, or making pizza. I was just bad. Not everyone can do it.

I could go deliver pizza, but with gas prices the way they are, how do you make money doing that?

I don't want to telecommute or I'd look into that option. There is a guy on our team that telecommutes two days a week. He lives over an hour away. I have done it a few times when I had the shits or had stuff going on at the house (furnace installation). It's flexible and that's why I like it so much.

But it's a 20% raise. Stop failing in life. heh

You're making an excuse, using your logic.


Of course, it's always the big evil corporations fault.

I don't know what this was in response to, but yes, it often is...so I won't even bother reading what I said to solicit this response.

I have been laid off, I've never been fired. I will almost wager that I will never be fired. Good thing I save up for rainy days and get jobs after I lose one... You should try it sometime instead of reading from your giant book of excuses.

If you were laid off, you were fired, you were just fired with a lot of people. Did you collect unemployment? (you don't have the guts to say yes)

I'm working right now, and looking for a second job. You're so good at ignoring that. You must hate the fact that I'm working.

[Matriel]

That's a good point. I'm not jumping to work at a fast food place. Of course, I don't think I'd be very good at that. I worked at a pizza shop for 4 years when I was just out of highschool and delivered pizza. Best job ever...but man did I suck at working the register, or making pizza. I was just bad. Not everyone can do it.

I could go deliver pizza, but with gas prices the way they are, how do you make money doing that?

You mean you didn't have the discipline to make yourself good at it.

Pizza Places add money to deliveries to help give gas money to drivers. Or at least most of them do.


But it's a 20% raise. Stop failing in life. heh

You're making an excuse, using your logic.

A raise isn't everything. That's part of why I chose a University for now. It's slightly under market average for Network Engineers, but the other benefits are better. They pay for my certification testing, classes (school and job), health care, retirement, etc.

I'm right about where I want to be at this juncture in my life. And I damn sure wouldn't move to Ohio for a 20% raise.


If you were laid off, you were fired, you were just fired with a lot of people. Did you collect unemployment? (you don't have the guts to say yes)

I'm working right now, and looking for a second job. You're so good at ignoring that. You must hate the fact that I'm working.

Laid off usually has more to do with downsizing than with termination for cause (firing). In this case that is what happened. I didn't collect unemployment because I immediately went to another construction company.

I'm glad you're working, but I'm sad that you're still making excuses on why you can't better yourself.

[Airius Droc]

You mean you didn't have the discipline to make yourself good at it.

Yeah, and I don't have the discipline to be a police officer too. Man you're something else.

Pizza Places add money to deliveries to help give gas money to drivers. Or at least most of them do.

All of them do - and it's never enough to actually pay for your gas, they hope the tips make up for the rest.

A raise isn't everything. That's part of why I chose a University for now. It's slightly under market average for Network Engineers, but the other benefits are better. They pay for my certification testing, classes (school and job), health care, retirement, etc.

I'm right about where I want to be at this juncture in my life. And I damn sure wouldn't move to Ohio for a 20% raise.

You're taking the spot of someone else. There are probably 100 people in your neighborhood that could do that job and have a worse job than you do.

Laid off usually has more to do with downsizing than with termination for cause (firing). In this case that is what happened. I didn't collect unemployment because I immediately went to another construction company.

I wasn't fired for cause.

I'm glad you're working, but I'm sad that you're still making excuses on why you can't better yourself.

I'm not saying I can't do better. When have I ever said that? I will do better.

What I'm saying is that it's unnessasarily difficult to be better, and that this country doesn't sufficiently provide an environment that's fair to labor and the average American.

[Airius Droc]

Laid off usually has more to do with downsizing than with termination for cause (firing). In this case that is what happened. I didn't collect unemployment because I immediately went to another construction company.

Morgan: How hard is it to push a motherfucking broom?
Chuckie: You got fired for pushing a fucking broom.
Morgan: I got fired cause management was restructuring.
Billy: Yeah, restructuring the amount of retards they had working for em.
Morgan: Shut up. You get canned more than tuna bitch.

[Killuminati]

Morgan: How hard is it to push a motherfucking broom?
Chuckie: You got fired for pushing a fucking broom.
Morgan: I got fired cause management was restructuring.
Billy: Yeah, restructuring the amount of retards they had working for em.
Morgan: Shut up. You get canned more than tuna bitch.

Maybe you should be more like Will, Arius. ;)

[Airius Droc]

Maybe you should be more like Will, Arius. ;)

:) You know what's funny. The HR guy that hired and fired me at my last job, privately compared himself to Will Hunting. He said he was like some kind of "math genius" that got lost in the "surfer culture of California." He then got involved in corporate HR (no degree) and now at age 40 something was going back to a State College to finish his degree (where I'd been told by several people he was the "dumbest guy in the class").

What's funny is that he was considered by most people there to be a worthless redneck who made mistakes all the time. I liked the guy and never thought that way about him.

He seemed to like me to, and had asked me to go into business with him outside of work. I told him I'd think about it - at the time I was busy doing my day job. Honestly, I found it unethical that an HR Guy would do business with someone outside of work - someone he may have to promote, fire, etc, someday. I never really got back with him on his offer, and I'm sure he thought I was just blowing him off.

In the end, he towed the company line and fired my ass, no reason given, and then never even showed up to the unemployment hearing that he requested. If goes to show you how important and fragile interoffice relationships are. In his mind, he probably thinks I shit on him or was playing him or something.

Corporations don't really create a strong sense of "good will" in my opinion.

[Killuminati]

haha, what a douchebag.

[Matriel]

Yeah, and I don't have the discipline to be a police officer too. Man you're something else.

Evidently you don't have the discipline to do a lot of things.


All of them do - and it's never enough to actually pay for your gas, they hope the tips make up for the rest.

How dare they help you out, but not give you everything. Those greedy corporate pig-dogs.


You're taking the spot of someone else. There are probably 100 people in your neighborhood that could do that job and have a worse job than you do.

Lol, the spot is for whomever the employer wants to have it. No one else deserves or is owed employment by any entity. You are one entitled motherfucker.

I wasn't fired for cause.

Somehow, I just can't believe a whining excuse maker like you wasn't fired for making excuses.


I'm not saying I can't do better. When have I ever said that? I will do better.

What I'm saying is that it's unnessasarily difficult to be better, and that this country doesn't sufficiently provide an environment that's fair to labor and the average American.

You'll do better when you stop making excuses and actually start doing things.

If it was so difficult to do better, people like me wouldn't be moving up constantly. Lol environment that's fair. Yet, you get to define fair right? Not the person that actually owns the business that's giving out the employment right. We must have the state step in and saves us from the evil people trying to make money with their own property. :bang:

[Marbo]

That's a good point. I'm not jumping to work at a fast food place. Of course, I don't think I'd be very good at that. I worked at a pizza shop for 4 years when I was just out of highschool and delivered pizza. Best job ever...but man did I suck at working the register, or making pizza. I was just bad. Not everyone can do it.


My 17 year-old girlfriend, and her 18 year-old friend can work a cash register. Said friend has borderline personality disorder, OCD, drug and alcohol abuse problems (fun fact: she was admitted to the hospital with a blood-alcohol level that almost broke the world record), cuts herself, and she failed almost all of her courses at school this year (including math). She has been in the psych ward at our hospital for 9 weeks in a row. I'm talking thrown in with crazies who believe they are the emperor of France.


So, how can a mentally unstable teenager work a register when a full grown man with a BA in accounting cannot? I'd assume that somewhere in your four year education they taught you how to count money.

[Vanno]

Then quit and find another job. Oh wait, <insert excuse here> happens, so I can't quit or find a better job. Or create a job.



You responded to my post about minimum wage being stupid and people getting more money if they feel they deserve it, so I can only assume.

The stealing of property fell more under the "anything else" part of the sentence. Although you could probably make the argument that enforcement of minimum wage is that stealing of property.

To quit, when you have bills to pay would be immensely stupid. It makes more sense to search once you have a job that provides some sort of income.

I was replying to your atypical argument that income levels are the result of hardwork, or lack thereof; there are a lot of hard workers that don't make much. Your arguments against labor programs have a tendency to be an exercise in arrogance and belittlement, rather than relevant Economic dialogue, and I was pointing it out. It is not necessary to call unemployed people lazy, essentially subhuman, pieces of garbage to point out the inherent flaws of things like wage fixing.

Lastly, it would be a very hard case to argue that minimum wage is by any means stealing. There is nothing physically being stolen; as I said, no business has to hire at those rates, if they find it Economically nonsensical to do so.

[Vanno]

Wait...... Matriel works for a University? Tell me it isn't a public?

[Marbo]

I'd still like to see Droc reply to my above post... shameless self-referral.

[Matriel]

To quit, when you have bills to pay would be immensely stupid. It makes more sense to search once you have a job that provides some sort of income.

It would. Having bills and no savings when you hate your job and thus can't quit is even more stupid.

I'm not saying there aren't valid reasons to stay in a job you hate, just that most of the time it's that individual's mistakes that have put them in the situation to begin with. Then most of said individuals want to blame everything but themselves for their shitty situation. Look at Airius. Everything is the fault of big business.

I was replying to your atypical argument that income levels are the result of hardwork, or lack thereof; there are a lot of hard workers that don't make much. Your arguments against labor programs have a tendency to be an exercise in arrogance and belittlement, rather than relevant Economic dialogue, and I was pointing it out. It is not necessary to call unemployed people lazy, essentially subhuman, pieces of garbage to point out the inherent flaws of things like wage fixing.

I never said that hard work gets you a higher income level. It sure helps, but you have to be somewhat intelligent at least in job picking. There are GED holding assembly line workers at Toyota that make a lot more money than me.

And most unemployed people could find employment if they would take it, so I will call most of them lazy. I didn't want to work construction when I left the Marines, but I did it until I found what I wanted.

Lastly, it would be a very hard case to argue that minimum wage is by any means stealing. There is nothing physically being stolen; as I said, no business has to hire at those rates, if they find it Economically nonsensical to do so.

The funding of the entities that enforce it aren't just appearing from thin air.

And businesses sure as shit can't hire for less than that.

[jonyak]

Wait...... Matriel works for a University? Tell me it isn't a public?

he will try and tell you it isn't.

[Matriel]

Wait...... Matriel works for a University? Tell me it isn't a public?

It is, and I fully support state sponsored public universities. They have a proven track record of doing good things for their surrounding regions.

he will try and tell you it isn't.

I've always said exactly what it is. Nice attempt at thread sniping like a bitch though.

[Vanno]

I could give a fuck about Aurias; he is a special (basket) case study, but not really indicative of the unemployed labor force or hiring entities. Perhaps if companies were more efficient dealing with costs and risk management in hiring procedures a very low unemployment rate might be possible, but even then there will always be some that aren't hired. The notion that most unemployed can find a job is a fairytale, it is basic Economics that there will always be some losers.

[Killuminati]

It is, and I fully support state sponsored public universities. They have a proven track record of doing good things for their surrounding regions.


Like paying you?

[Matriel]

I could give a fuck about Aurias; he is a special (basket) case study, but not really indicative of the unemployed labor force or hiring entities. Perhaps if companies were more efficient dealing with costs and risk management in hiring procedures a very low unemployment rate might be possible, but even then there will always be some that aren't hired. The notion that most unemployed can find a job is an Economic fairytale, it is basic Economics that there will be some losers.

Don't we have a very low unemployment rate now?

Who has ever said it would be 0 at all times? I never even remotely implied that.

There are no shortages of places hiring at all times, saying that unemployed people can't find a job is funny. My old fiance's dad worked in Unemployment for like 48 years and he said there are always jobs to be handed out by people that have a high turnover rate like UPS. The office just ends up mostly as a revolving door for the same people taking advantage of the service.

[jonyak]

I've always said exactly what it is. Nice attempt at thread sniping like a bitch though.

hey relax...

we had a discussion about this once where you told me that it is not a federaly funded instituition. I took by that, that it is not a public school...

[Vanno]

Like paying you?

Well, he is an inhabitant of the surrounding region.

[Matriel]

Like paying you?

Yes, that's a good thing. Also, the health care services we provide. Education, research, farm services, necropsy, etc.

And lol, my department used to be able to turn a profit until Clinton banned it. We bill for labor done, we don't really receive much of a standing budget outside of the backbone of the network.

[Killuminati]

Yes, that's a good thing. Also, the health care services we provide. Education, research, farm services, necropsy, etc.

And lol, my department used to be able to turn a profit until Clinton banned it. We bill for labor done, we don't really receive much of a standing budget outside of the backbone of the network.

Uh, how do they provide these things? Research means you probably get grants.

[Marbo]

I think I'll just repost my statement when Droc gets back.

[Vanno]

Don't we have a very low unemployment rate now?

Who has ever said it would be 0 at all times? I never even remotely implied that.

There are no shortages of places hiring at all times, saying that unemployed people can't find a job is funny. My old fiance's dad worked in Unemployment for like 48 years and he said there are always jobs to be handed out by people that have a high turnover rate like UPS. The office just ends up mostly as a revolving door for the same people taking advantage of the service.

You implied exactly that by saying anyone can get a job, if they just try hard.

As for low unemployment, it depends on what numbers you are looking at, and whether you think they are accurate. UE numbers were 5.5% last I looked, of course that is calculated by unemployment claims, not all unemployed will necessarily claim. Even if we accept 5.5% is the right number, that still means millions of people looking for work, but not finding it.

Labor Force Participation is down to like 60%, which is historically rather low.

[Matriel]

Uh, how do they provide these things? Research means you probably get grants.

Some research is from grants, some is from profits from the medical center. I'm not against research grants as long as the technology is given out and not parceled off to pet private companies. If we are going to have a government and it's going to tax, then research should be something that it does. All of the other stuff is a requirement from the state to keep in the budget. So, it comes from tuition, grants, state appropriations, the medical center, etc.

[Killuminati]

Some research is from grants, some is from profits from the medical center. I'm not against research grants as long as the technology is given out and not parceled off to pet private companies. If we are going to have a government and it's going to tax, then research should be something that it does.

So forced redistribution of wealth is ok as long as it doesn't reach poor people. If it goes to some schmuck that wants to research climate change. It probably is for the good of society.

[Matriel]

You implied exactly that by saying anyone can get a job, if they just try hard.

As for low unemployment, it depends on what numbers you are looking at, and whether you think they are accurate. UE numbers were 5.5% last I looked, of course that is calculated by unemployment claims, not all unemployed will necessarily claim. Even if we accept 5.5% is the right number, that still means millions of people looking for work, but not finding it.

Labor Force Participation is down to like 60%, which is historically rather low.

They pretty much can. That doesn't mean immediately or right now, but anyone can get a job if they attempt it and aren't totally just fucked.

And those millions (8 or so) isn't really all that much when you consider how many of those people are working and how many places are constantly hiring. The nature of the beast means some people are always in and out of work, but not that those people can't find work in some sort of timely fashion.

[Matriel]

So forced redistribution of wealth is ok as long as it doesn't reach poor people. If it goes to some schmuck that wants to research climate change. It probably is for the good of society.

Open research would benefit everyone no? Only a small part of our budget is state appropriations and only half of the state budget or so is taken from individuals. The same with the Federal government and research grants. The government makes plenty of money without income taxation that could be used for research.

But no, it's not okay, but it's reality. Soon as you figure out how to get a real anarcho capitalist society let me know, until then might as well have the least evil you can.

[Vanno]

So forced redistribution of wealth is ok as long as it doesn't reach poor people. If it goes to some schmuck that wants to research climate change. It probably is for the good of society.

Wow, you just Matriel-ed Matriel, that recipient of stolen goods!

[Matriel]

Wow, you just Matriel-ed Matriel, that recipient of stolen goods!

He forced me to admit I sometimes like compromise and pragmatism. He's a dick.

Also, 10th amendment, states rights.

[Killuminati]

Open research would benefit everyone no? Only a small part of our budget is state appropriations and only half of the state budget or so is taken from individuals. The same with the Federal government and research grants. The government makes plenty of money without income taxation that could be used for research.

But no, it's not okay, but it's reality. Soon as you figure out how to get a real anarcho capitalist society let me know, until then might as well have the least evil you can.

Of course not! That would be assuming that the government properly allocates resources for society. Haha, so poor people don't benefit from welfare? It gives them food to eat I believe. The whole point is it is entirely hypocritical to argue against forced redistribution of wealth for Act A while actively supporting Act B because you deem it to be a benefit to society. That usually comes from the mouth of a central planner.

Also this has nothing to do with Anarcho-Capitalism. Even a minarchist would argue the same way. The possibility of an ancap society is irrelevant anyways.

[Vanno]

He forced me to admit I sometimes like compromise and pragmatism. He's a dick.

Also, 10th amendment, states rights.

When it benefits oneself, who wouldn't mind a little pragmatism amIrite?

[Vanno]

Of course not! That would be assuming that the government properly allocates resources for society. Haha, so poor people don't benefit from welfare? It gives them food to eat I believe. The whole point is it is entirely hypocritical to argue against forced redistribution of wealth for Act A while actively supporting Act B because you deem it to be a benefit to society. That usually comes from the mouth of a central planner.

Also this has nothing to do with Anarcho-Capitalism. Even a minarchist would argue the same way. The possibility of an ancap society is irrelevant anyways.

A bit of a derailment, but there is a great book about Anarcho-Capitalism and Law written by Bruce Benson. (http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488301/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215542163&sr=8-2) If I decide to enroll in Florida State University's actuary science program, I am totally going to be a nutt-hugger.

[Killuminati]

When it benefits oneself, who wouldn't mind a little pragmatism amIrite?

Made me sad when I found out Rothbard and Hoppe both taught at UNLV.

[white magi]

Is Matriel a troll?

You mean to tell me that for 200 years no one except a white man was able to get the job of being the president of the United States because everyone else was just lazy? You are taking this "personal responsibility" thing to fanatical levels.

There are countless factors as to why people can't find a job, yes some people are just flat out lazy but not everyone that cannot find a job is lazy. If I had taken any other whatever job, I would have never had the time to go on interviews to get a real job where I can contribute all my knowledge and expertise to society. Why should I waste my time scrubbing toilets when I could be working(yes finding a job is a job within itself) to find a position where I could be most beneficial? Hey maybe there's someone out there who knows how to scrub toilets a lot better and faster than I do, they may know the right moves and detergents to use. Let them have that job if they really want it and are better at it than me.

I was jobless for quite a few months but relentlessly went after the position I really wanted and I finally got it and I'm glad I waited.

[Vanno]

Made me sad when I found out Rothbard and Hoppe both taught at UNLV.

Yeah, at the end of the day professors have to profess somewhere; not all schools are private, unfortunately. UNLV is sweet though; it is one of the few Universities that teaches Austrian stuff, along with the mainstream Economics.

[Killuminati]

A bit of a derailment, but there is a great book about Anarcho-Capitalism and Law written by Bruce Benson. (http://www.amazon.com/Enterprise-Law-Justice-Without-State/dp/0936488301/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215542163&sr=8-2) If I decide to enroll in Florida State University's actuary science program, I am totally going to be a nutt-hugger.

I heard that book is really good. I really want to read it someday. I've been lazy this summer since I graduated high school. Gotta finish some of my rothbard books and I promised myself I would finish Man, Economy, & State before I start school again.

[Vanno]

I heard that book is really good. I really want to read it someday. I've been lazy this summer since I graduated high school. Gotta finish some of my rothbard books and I promised myself I would finish Man, Economy, & State before I start school again.

It is definitely good. My copy got stolen, along with Wealth of Nations, and Theory of The Leisure Class. Some fool(s) smashed my car windshield, and ran off with a bag. I can't imagine they knew those books where in it.

[Killuminati]

Yeah, at the end of the day professors have to profess somewhere; not all schools are private, unfortunately. UNLV is sweet though; it is one of the few Universities that teaches Austrian stuff, along with the mainstream Economics.

Yah, I guess but still. Rothbard was really anti-state. I'm going to GMU to learn Austrian Economics. I also want to take classes with Bryan Caplan hopefully. He is a neo-classical who use to be Austrian. Now he is totally against them, but I have taken a liking to him and I want to learn from him. He probably has good reasons.


It is definitely good. My copy got stolen, along with Wealth of Nations, and Theory of The Leisure Class. Some fool(s) smashed my car windshield, and ran off with a bag. I can't imagine they knew those books where in it.

Maybe it was a socialist :ninja:

That sucks though who the hell steals books? Would be funny if he read them and stopped his evil ways. Probably thought something good was in the bag.

[Matriel]

Of course not! That would be assuming that the government properly allocates resources for society. Haha, so poor people don't benefit from welfare? It gives them food to eat I believe. The whole point is it is entirely hypocritical to argue against forced redistribution of wealth for Act A while actively supporting Act B because you deem it to be a benefit to society. That usually comes from the mouth of a central planner.

Also this has nothing to do with Anarcho-Capitalism. Even a minarchist would argue the same way. The possibility of an ancap society is irrelevant anyways.

If the research is open the government is allocating anything after it is discovered. Welfare is a direct take from A to give to B. Research is take from A to give to a,b,c,d,e,f,g. While I feel that both are inherently wrong, I feel that the latter is less wrong and if the shit is going to be in place (government) then I'd much rather see the latter than the former.

It is hypocritical if you believe there are no shades of grey. Reality has shades of grey.

When it benefits oneself, who wouldn't mind a little pragmatism amIrite?

Damn straight, I embrace my human nature.

Is Matriel a troll?

Aren't we all trolls?

You mean to tell me that for 200 years no one except a white man was able to get the job of being the president of the United States because everyone else was just lazy? You are taking this "personal responsibility" thing to fanatical levels.

Obviously if all it takes a minority to repeat change 500 times to get into position to get the job.


I was jobless for quite a few months but relentlessly went after the position I really wanted and I finally got it and I'm glad I waited.

However, the entire time you persisted you could have taken other employment had you wanted to. You're agreeing with me.

It is definitely good. My copy got stolen, along with Wealth of Nations, and Theory of The Leisure Class. Some fool(s) smashed my car windshield, and ran off with a bag. I can't imagine they knew those books where in it.

Haha, I bet that was some disappointed thieves.

[Vanno]

Yah, I guess but still. Rothbard was really anti-state. I'm going to GMU to learn Austrian Economics. I also want to take classes with Bryan Caplan hopefully. He is a neo-classical who use to be Austrian. Now he is totally against them, but I have taken a liking to him and I want to learn from him. He probably has good reasons.



The Chicago School borrows heavy from Austrian Economics though, so the guy can't be totally against it. I actually prefer the Chicago school, in part, because they aren't so adamantly against mathematical Economics, which is useful for testing theory.

[Killuminati]

If the research is open the government is allocating anything after it is discovered. Welfare is a direct take from A to give to B. Research is take from A to give to a,b,c,d,e,f,g. While I feel that both are inherently wrong, I feel that the latter is less wrong and if the shit is going to be in place (government) then I'd much rather see the latter than the former.

It is hypocritical if you believe there are no shades of grey. Reality has shades of grey.

Damn straight, I embrace my human nature.



Except the reason why you rally in defense for the latter its because you are trying to justify yourself. Also when wealth is redistributed through social programs it is given to many different people. Senior Citizens, the disable, and the poor. Also researchers are also leechers of the state. Since a lot of them purposely take up a certain project in order to get money from the government since they know that the government is currently subsidizing that specific kind of research. For example the government is funding biofuel research and we know how useful that is right? Ethanol Woopee!!

I do agree reality is shades of gray. But how do you suppose you'll ever get an Ancap society if you yourself aren't going to take a stand against everything the government is about.

[Airius Droc]

So, how can a mentally unstable teenager work a register when a full grown man with a BA in accounting cannot? I'd assume that somewhere in your four year education they taught you how to count money.

1) I don't have a BA in accounting.
2) I didn't say I couldn't do it, I said I wasn't good at it.
3) It was about 13 years ago.
4) I replied to your post, I hope you feel wonderful now. (jesus, I was out with my kids at the park for a few hours - the world doesn't revolve around this message board)

[Airius Droc]

Don't we have a very low unemployment rate now?

Who has ever said it would be 0 at all times? I never even remotely implied that.

The US has all the minimum wage jobs anyone could ever ask for.

[Killuminati]

The Chicago School borrows heavy from Austrian Economics though, so the guy can't be totally against it. I actually prefer the Chicago school, in part, because they aren't so adamantly against mathematical Economics, which is useful for testing theory.

Except the Chicago School is for fiat money. The only good person that came out of Chicago was Friedman. I sort of like Coase though for some reason. Friedman at least conceded and admitted he was wrong about gold before he died. I dunno I sometimes think mathematics isn't good to explain human behavior and the economy. I forgot the exact quote from Friedman. He tried to explain mathematic models with Pool. He explained that mathematical models are created as as estimitates of what may happen and in what direction a ball may go. So it should never be entirely trusted but it still should be done.

[Matriel]

Except the reason why you rally in defense for the latter its because you are trying to justify yourself. Also when wealth is redistributed through social programs it is given to many different people. Senior Citizens, the disable, and the poor. Also researchers are also leechers of the state. Since a lot of them purposely take up a certain project in order to get money from the government since they know that the government is currently subsidizing that specific kind of research. For example the government is funding biofuel research and we know how useful that is right? Ethanol Woopee!!

No, I'm just picking which one is the least bad. Darpanet is a great example. Government started, turned over to private corporations and boom we have the Internets.

And yes, some researchers are useless, I never said they weren't. However, not all biofuel research is pointless. Those bugs that shit crude oil are teh awesome.

I do agree reality is shades of gray. But how do you suppose you'll ever get an Ancap society if you yourself aren't going to take a stand against everything the government is about.

The only way we'll ever have an ancap society is if there is nuclear war. Best you can do is advocate for the best shit to happen while stuff is being stolen and buy survival gear imo. I am a cynic.

[Airius Droc]

When it benefits oneself, who wouldn't mind a little pragmatism amIrite?

If only we had a word for that...

Something to do with Capital maybe?

[Malhavok]

Except the reason why you rally in defense for the latter its because you are trying to justify yourself. Also when wealth is redistributed through social programs it is given to many different people. Senior Citizens, the disable, and the poor. Also researchers are also leechers of the state. Since a lot of them purposely take up a certain project in order to get money from the government since they know that the government is currently subsidizing that specific kind of research. For example the government is funding biofuel research and we know how useful that is right? Ethanol Woopee!!

I do agree reality is shades of gray. But how do you suppose you'll ever get an Ancap society if you yourself aren't going to take a stand against everything the government is about.

Cellulosic ethanol actually makes a lot of sense.

[Killuminati]

No, I'm just picking which one is the least bad. Darpanet is a great example. Government started, turned over to private corporations and boom we have the Internets.

And yes, some researchers are useless, I never said they weren't. However, not all biofuel research is pointless. Those bugs that shit crude oil are teh awesome.


Just because good things came from the act doesn't justify it. Reminds me of this guy who once told me omg we would have never went to the moon when I had the same discussion. Plus I'm not really fond of the fact that it originated for military purposes. The fact is though no one can negate the fact that it could have arisen without the government.

[Airius Droc]

Just because good things came from the act doesn't justify it. Reminds me of this guy who once told me omg we would have never went to the moon when I had the same discussion. Plus I'm not really fond of the fact that it originated for military purposes. The fact is though no one can negate the fact that it could have arisen without the government.

There are a ton of things that are unlikely to happen without the government.

For example, name something.

[Killuminati]

There are a ton of things that are unlikely to happen without the government.

For example, name something.

You

[Airius Droc]

You

Really? You think I would've been born without the government? How do you figure? I mean, without the government it's difficult to say that the last 200 years would've been the same - isn't it?

Without government, order will not exist.

[Matriel]

Just because good things came from the act doesn't justify it. Reminds me of this guy who once told me omg we would have never went to the moon when I had the same discussion. Plus I'm not really fond of the fact that it originated for military purposes. The fact is though no one can negate the fact that it could have arisen without the government.

Lol, a good portion of advancements you use today originated for military purposes. Stop being such a weenie. :p

And yes, it probably would have occurred without the government.

[Killuminati]

Really? You think I would've been born without the government? How do you figure? I mean, without the government it's difficult to say that the last 200 years would've been the same - isn't it?

Without government, order will not exist.

Well since you can't seem to eat food without the governments help. It seems you would cease to exist.

[Airius Droc]

Well since you can't seem to eat food without the governments help. It seems you would cease to exist.

I can't buy food for a family of 5 and still pay my bills without the government's help. Big difference.

It's ok though because more income is going to trickle down any time now. It's going to be a landslide too, because I haven't seen a single trickle yet, which means it must be like a gazillion dollars!

[Killuminati]

Lol, a good portion of advancements you use today originated for military purposes. Stop being such a weenie. :p

And yes, it probably would have occurred without the government.

don't remind me. :(

Stop being such a statist you jew :eek::D

[KainIIIC]

Well I guess it was only natural for the one who has been (continually) railing against government this entire thread is the one who is, infact, employed by the government, drives on government-created roads, drinks water that is mandated by the government to be clean, drives in cars that is mandated by the government to have safety standards, and the list goes on. I suppose something is always bad whenever it benefits someone other than you, but good and reasonable when it benefits you.

you must be happy that eventually you'll be able to get tenure, the free market would never offer you that.

</dogmatic ideology> <pragmatism>

[Killuminati]

Well I guess it was only natural for the one who has been (continually) railing against government this entire thread is the one who is, infact, employed by the government, drives on government-created roads, drinks water that is mandated by the government to be clean, drives in cars that is mandated by the government to have safety standards, and the list goes on. I suppose something is always bad whenever it benefits someone other than you, but good and reasonable when it benefits you.

you must be happy that eventually you'll be able to get tenure, the free market would never offer you that.

</dogmatic ideology> <pragmatism>

Hahahaha, Dude you are awesome.

By the way. Did you write this article?

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1

[Matriel]

Well I guess it was only natural for the one who has been (continually) railing against government this entire thread is the one who is, infact, employed by the government, drives on government-created roads, drinks water that is mandated by the government to be clean, drives in cars that is mandated by the government to have safety standards, and the list goes on. I suppose something is always bad whenever it benefits someone other than you, but good and reasonable when it benefits you.

you must be happy that eventually you'll be able to get tenure, the free market would never offer you that.

</dogmatic ideology> <pragmatism>

State government != Federal Government

Roads are paid for mostly by consumption taxes on gasoline. Private roads tend to function a hell of a lot better than public roads. I could only wish the government didn't monopolize roads.

That mandated clean water and other health shit hasn't stopped the constant outbreaks of e coli everwhere. The FDA is a waste of money.

I'm not a faculty member, I won't get tenure. I'm here until they pay for my CCIE lab and then they'll give me what I want in a job or I'll go elsewhere.

You basically don't have a single clue what you're talking on anything. You just regurgitate answers that you got from Marxism.org or something.

[Airius Droc]

Well I guess it was only natural for the one who has been (continually) railing against government this entire thread is the one who is, infact, employed by the government, drives on government-created roads, drinks water that is mandated by the government to be clean, drives in cars that is mandated by the government to have safety standards, and the list goes on. I suppose something is always bad whenever it benefits someone other than you, but good and reasonable when it benefits you.

you must be happy that eventually you'll be able to get tenure, the free market would never offer you that.

</dogmatic ideology> <pragmatism>

If I'm not mistaken, his schooling was paid for by the military. He's a very good example of the "I've got mine - now fuck off" mentality.

[Matriel]

If I'm not mistaken, his schooling was paid for by the military. He's a very good example of the "I've got mine - now fuck off" mentality.

Education benefits are part of the compensation package you receive when you contract into military service. A job isn't just what you make per hour. Well, it probably is to you since you work minimum wage jobs and complain you can't feed 5 people on it.

[Airius Droc]

Education benefits are part of the compensation package you receive when you contract into military service. A job isn't just what you make per hour. Well, it probably is to you since you work minimum wage jobs and complain you can't feed 5 people on it.

So everything you've gotten is from the government. You're amazing.

I've probably paid more in taxes than you ever have (and I'll bet you this is true). I've probably paid my own way (percentage wise) more than you have.

You're absolutely shameless.

No wonder you're so Socialiphobic...you're gay for government welfare. I'm going to call Gavin Newsome and see if he'll marry you to an Obama bumper sticker.

[Marbo]

1) I don't have a BA in accounting.
2) I didn't say I couldn't do it, I said I wasn't good at it.
3) It was about 13 years ago.
4) I replied to your post, I hope you feel wonderful now. (jesus, I was out with my kids at the park for a few hours - the world doesn't revolve around this message board)

I know it doesn't. Anyway thanks, this message was mainly composed by my girlfriend anyway, but I strictly approved of it!

[Matriel]

So everything you've gotten is from the government. You're amazing.

I've probably paid more in taxes than you ever have (and I'll bet you this is true). I've probably paid my own way (percentage wise) more than you have.

You're absolutely shameless.

No wonder you're so Socialiphobic...you're gay for government welfare. I'm going to call Gavin Newsome and see if he'll marry you to an Obama bumper sticker.

Yes, the government held my hand and got me through boot camp, Iraq, and college. I had to put in zero work to earn any of that. It was all free. :rolleyes: It was totally the same as welfare, doing nothing for a handout.

I'd hope to god you've paid more taxes than me, you're like fucking 40 by now. If I have, that just shows how big of a loser you are.

Soon as Obama agrees to abide by the Constitution and leave non designated things to the states, I'll vote for him.

[Airius Droc]

Yes, the government held my hand and got me through boot camp, Iraq, and college. I had to put in zero work to earn any of that. It was all free. :rolleyes:

Oh what's that? You took on government money and you worked? Isn't that impossible using your logic?

I mean, I didn't get money from the government...I'm still paying student loans. So although on the one hand I'm happy you got a college education (and I'm happy all soldiers get that opportunity) how is this ANY FUCKING different from someone getting food stamps or social security?

Don't I pay for your college education? Afterall, while you were working construction jobs I was paying about 50k a year in taxes.

This post is brought to you by the letter H, which starts with the word Hypocrite.

I'd hope to god you've paid more taxes than me, you're like fucking 40 by now. If I have, that just shows how big of a loser you are.

I'm 35.

Soon as Obama agrees to abide by the Constitution and leave non designated things to the states, I'll vote for him.

I'm glad he doesn't need your vote. Change is coming.

[Matriel]

Oh what's that? You took on government money and you worked? Isn't that impossible using your logic?

Do you understand what employment is? Welfare and food stamps aren't employment...

I mean, I didn't get money from the government...I'm still paying student loans. So although on the one hand I'm happy you got a college education (and I'm happy all soldiers get that opportunity) how is this ANY FUCKING different from someone getting food stamps or social security?

Did you contract out 4 years of your life working for the government (including giving up rights) so they would pay for that education? No, you took out student loans.

Don't I pay for your college education? Afterall, while you were working construction jobs I was paying about 50k a year in taxes.

I finished my degree a year before I EAS'd and started working construction. You don't even have the details on what you're trying to attack. Why not just call it a straw man since that seems to be your default answer when you're in over your head?

I'm 35.

So, in 9 years and a month when I'm 35, I bet I've paid more taxes than you.


I'm glad he doesn't need your vote. Change is coming.

Fastest path to a revolution. I can't wait.

[Airius Droc]

Do you understand what employment is? Welfare and food stamps aren't employment...

So if the government had a program where if you work you get food stamps you'd be fore that? Also, you'd be fine with all government employees getting a free ride in college, right?

Did you contract out 4 years of your life working for the government (including giving up rights) so they would pay for that education? No, you took out student loans.

Actually, I contracted out the rest of my life until I pay those loans. You got off easy.

I finished my degree a year before I EAS'd and started working construction. You don't even have the details on what you're trying to attack. Why not just call it a straw man since that seems to be your default answer when you're in over your head?

You got money for college - from the government. Taxpayer money. You're against that, right?

It must be nice to be able to pick and choose your way around free rides.

So, in 9 years and a month when I'm 35, I bet I've paid more taxes than you.

Only if I'm dead before then.

Fastest path to a revolution. I can't wait.

A revolution? You can't even get through now without the government. They're not going to pay for you to go to war with them you know?

[KainIIIC]

State government != Federal Government


Ah yes, "All Government is bad" but wait "State government, even though i've said everything about how government is bad, is actually good!" It's just a smaller constituency, a different voter base, and a local situation.

Roads are paid for mostly by consumption taxes on gasoline. Private roads tend to function a hell of a lot better than public roads. I could only wish the government didn't monopolize roads.

BUT BUT! Taxes are t3h evil. BUT BUT! Our interstate system that makes our national economy more efficient is t3h evil!

That mandated clean water and other health shit hasn't stopped the constant outbreaks of e coli everwhere. The FDA is a waste of money.


go for the exception rather than realize that our water system is still a helluva lot better than, for instance, mexico. The FDA is inefficient and in the pocket of lobbyists, but that is for another rant where I think that we could find some common ground.

I'm not a faculty member, I won't get tenure. I'm here until they pay for my CCIE lab and then they'll give me what I want in a job or I'll go elsewhere.

my mistake that you wont be seeking tenure, but the contradiction still exists, rather scathingly.

You basically don't have a single clue what you're talking on anything. You just regurgitate answers that you got from Marxism.org or something.

Or you're just blind to some kind of mesh between Randism and neo-liberalism, and the result is a nightmare. That's what happens when you look at the world in extremes, whether it be marxism or neo-liberalism.

[Matriel]

So if the government had a program where if you work you get food stamps you'd be fore that? Also, you'd be fine with all government employees getting a free ride in college, right?

Essentially yes on both. At face value, I think nothing like that should exist, but if we have to compromise on government services, workfare is much better than welfare.


Actually, I contracted out the rest of my life until I pay those loans. You got off easy.

I'd rather pay off loans than be mortared, but to each his own.


You got money for college - from the government. Taxpayer money. You're against that, right?

I paid taxes, so basically my own money. I also used the GI Bill, which I paid into.

It must be nice to be able to pick and choose your way around free rides.

A free ride implies something for nothing. The military is anything but. Well, maybe not the Air Force.

A revolution? You can't even get through now without the government. They're not going to pay for you to go to war with them you know?

Yes, trying to get back my "contributions" to the Fed denotes a reliance and need for it... Great correlation.

[Airius Droc]

That's what happens when you look at the world in extremes, whether it be marxism or neo-liberalism.

I agree completely with this statement.

[Airius Droc]

Essentially yes on both. At face value, I think nothing like that should exist, but if we have to compromise on government services, workfare is much better than welfare.

I can't get food stamps if I don't work. Ohio has a "work's first" program of welfare. So 1 out of 10 people that get food stamps also work.

I'd rather pay off loans than be mortared, but to each his own.

You don't have to pay off loans and I don't have to get mortared, we're even at best.

I paid taxes, so basically my own money. I also used the GI Bill, which I paid into.

I paid taxes too, for which I haven't begun to see the money returned. So we're even at best.

A free ride implies something for nothing. The military is anything but. Well, maybe not the Air Force.

Tax payer money. Give it back you bum. (your logic, not mine)

Yes, trying to get back my "contributions" to the Fed denotes a reliance and need for it... Great correlation.

Again, we're even at best.

[KainIIIC]

Hahahaha, Dude you are awesome.

By the way. Did you write this article?

http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=1

nah but that is pretty entertaining. I just dislike hypocrites - ones who preach moral values but have gay sex in public restrooms, or rails against something that they are personally involved in.

[Matriel]

Ah yes, "All Government is bad" but wait "State government, even though i've said everything about how government is bad, is actually good!" It's just a smaller constituency, a different voter base, and a local situation.

Which makes it somewhat efficient at providing services to it's people vice a gargantuan behemoth that cannot.

All government is bad, but reality is what it is. Therefore I advocate for the least evil. You sound like those idiots trying to slam Ron Paul for earmarking federal funds back to his district. That since he's against the rampant spending he should not try and get their money back.

I'm against it, but I'm also not a fool, I'll try and get my money back. And keep the most that I can.


BUT BUT! Taxes are t3h evil. BUT BUT! Our interstate system that makes our national economy more efficient is t3h evil!

Consumption taxes are better than income taxes. At least it is a choice. The Interstate system fucked over a lot of people and lead the way for giant corporations buying laws to get what they want funtime, so I disagree that it was a great thing. Either way, it doesn't work near as well as the private roads I have used.


go for the exception rather than realize that our water system is still a helluva lot better than, for instance, mexico. The FDA is inefficient and in the pocket of lobbyists, but that is for another rant where I think that we could find some common ground.

Well with a GDP exponentially larger than Mexico, I'd hope to fuck our water system is better than Mexicos. Red Herrings ftw.

The FDA is utterly useless. They don't accomplish their mission in the slightest.


my mistake that you wont be seeking tenure, but the contradiction still exists, rather scathingly.

Not when I'm not against state government that's actually beneficial in some cases. Mmm..doublenegative goodness. 10th Amendment. Try reading it.


Or you're just blind to some kind of mesh between Randism and neo-liberalism, and the result is a nightmare. That's what happens when you look at the world in extremes, whether it be marxism or neo-liberalism.

Randism. I like that term!

[Killuminati]

I agree completely with this statement.

I feel its rather extreme of you to think you deserve other peoples money to support your family.

[Airius Droc]

I feel its rather extreme of you to think you deserve other peoples money to support your family.

So far it's just mine...according to the taxes I've paid in my life.

But that argument only works when Matriel uses it I suppose.

[Matriel]

So far it's just mine...according to the taxes I've paid in my life.

But that argument only works when Matriel uses it I suppose.

I'll agree with that. Get your own fucking money back!

[KainIIIC]

Which makes it somewhat efficient at providing services to it's people vice a gargantuan behemoth that cannot.

All government is bad, but reality is what it is. Therefore I advocate for the least evil. You sound like those idiots trying to slam Ron Paul for earmarking federal funds back to his district. That since he's against the rampant spending he should not try and get their money back.

I'm against it, but I'm also not a fool, I'll try and get my money back. And keep the most that I can.


No, I'm the type of person who slams Ron Paul for earmarking federal funds back to his district, then voting against the earmarked federal funds out of cynism.

It's all about walking the walk, rather than just providing the allusion of your talk.

In any event, if history has showed us anything, it's that devolution of government IS good as it generally provides better local services, but that doesn't mean that the federal government has many inherent advantages that do not exist in municipalities or even state governments.

Consumption taxes are better than income taxes. At least it is a choice.

maybe for you, but again, the government isn't (or atleast shouldn't) be looking out for simply you.

The Interstate system fucked over a lot of people and lead the way for giant corporations buying laws to get what they want funtime, so I disagree that it was a great thing. Either way, it doesn't work near as well as the private roads I have used.

contrarian just to be a contrarian. In any event, every action has its consequences, just like Interstates will build over a bunch of people's hard-earned houses or cutting down a tree will contribute to CO2 emissions. It's whether or not these actions, overall, are beneficial to society. For economic activity, Interstates HAVE been beneficial.

Well with a GDP exponentially larger than Mexico, I'd hope to fuck our water system is better than Mexicos. Red Herrings ftw.

a better example would be the Netherlands, which has neglected its water infrastructure to match up to ours for example. But the difference with the United States and Mexico, is we have a viable alternative to drinking bottled water... Mexico will get you sick.

The FDA is utterly useless. They don't accomplish their mission in the slightest.

well for someone who doesn't believe in the concept of government (except when it benefits you), that seems to be a typical response.

Not when I'm not against state government that's actually beneficial in some cases. Mmm..doublenegative goodness. 10th Amendment. Try reading it.


then surely you must be against federal $$$ to state government universities.

[Matriel]

No, I'm the type of person who slams Ron Paul for earmarking federal funds back to his district, then voting against the earmarked federal funds out of cynism.

It's all about walking the walk, rather than just providing the allusion of your talk.

Psh, against the spending, has the voting record to prove it and is smart enough to get their money back to some extent. Sounds just smart to me.


In any event, if history has showed us anything, it's that devolution of government IS good as it generally provides better local services, but that doesn't mean that the federal government has many inherent advantages that do not exist in municipalities or even state governments.

Like what?


maybe for you, but again, the government isn't (or atleast shouldn't) be looking out for simply you.

It damn sure shouldn't be stomping on any individual to look out for society. We aren't insects.

contrarian just to be a contrarian. In any event, every action has its consequences, just like Interstates will build over a bunch of people's hard-earned houses or cutting down a tree will contribute to CO2 emissions. It's whether or not these actions, overall, are beneficial to society. For economic activity, Interstates HAVE been beneficial.

Beneficial at the cost of stealing land, putting businesses on US highways out of business and opening up basically the owning of America by large corporations that can buy legislation. If we're going to start doing shit just because of some net benefit to society, then let's just throw the Constitution away, because it's no longer about individuals.


a better example would be the Netherlands, which has neglected its water infrastructure to match up to ours for example. But the difference with the United States and Mexico, is we have a viable alternative to drinking bottled water... Mexico will get you sick.


I'm not familiar with the Netherlands situation. Comparing Mexico to the US is just silly. If anything, the Mexican government has more power than the US government and thus should be able to provide a far better service if government is all you need to have clean water. Simple fact is, people want clean water here and will ensure that it happens. And the FDA and Federal Clean Water Act haven't done shit to really keep it going all that well. Unless you consider years long lawsuits effective at cleaning up damage.


well for someone who doesn't believe in the concept of government (except when it benefits you), that seems to be a typical response.

You aren't following. I don't believe in government period. I'm just smart enough to try and get some of my money back from it.


then surely you must be against federal $$$ to state government universities.

Yes, and the only way UK gets federal money is from accepting research grants. Which is segmented away from the general budget.

[KainIIIC]

Psh, against the spending, has the voting record to prove it and is smart enough to get their money back to some extent. Sounds just smart to me.

or completely hypocritical.

Like what?

Things that require massive amounts of money and capital. healthcare and welfare services (which you don't believe in), infrastructure developments and maintenance (for you, feds = bad, state = magically good), military, research, relief to natural disasters, and to enact regulations (which you apparently don't think is good) for a good purpose across the country, like lowering Carbon Emissions, without major negative consequences on a state-by-state basis.

It damn sure shouldn't be stomping on any individual to look out for society. We aren't insects.


nope, exactly. Governments are supposed to promote the general will of society, not promote whatever is bad for everyone else but happens to be good for Matriel.

If we're going to start doing shit just because of some net benefit to society, then let's just throw the Constitution away, because it's no longer about individuals.


5th amendment plz

I'm not familiar with the Netherlands situation. Comparing Mexico to the US is just silly. If anything, the Mexican government has more power than the US government and thus should be able to provide a far better service if government is all you need to have clean water. Simple fact is, people want clean water here and will ensure that it happens. And the FDA and Federal Clean Water Act haven't done shit to really keep it going all that well. Unless you consider years long lawsuits effective at cleaning up damage.


regulation in the United States has really declined since the Reagan era, and there hasn't been a major public outcry lobby for prestine water, thus the quality of our water hasn't changed a tremendous amount since then. In any event, Mexican taxes and government are not very large, and it seems to be run mostly by the municipality level, which, if you've ever heard of the sewage problem in Atlanta, can take decades for any political action to solve it. but as with clean water in the US, the FDA, despite its obvious downsides, does a pretty good job of keeping the food supply safe, moreso anyways than the "free market" could offer.

[Matriel]

or completely hypocritical.

It would be plain stupid to just let their money go to waste.


Things that require massive amounts of money and capital. healthcare and welfare services (which you don't believe in), infrastructure developments and maintenance (for you, feds = bad, state = magically good), military, research, relief to natural disasters, and to enact regulations (which you apparently don't think is good) for a good purpose across the country, like lowering Carbon Emissions, without major negative consequences on a state-by-state basis.

Yes, healthcare, the joy that will bankrupt us as a nation. Go go medicare!

And lol state magically good. More like state bearable.

Military, research, even FEMA (which is useless) could all be covered by the half of the budget that doesn't come from income taxation.

Ooh carbon emissions. Big bad global warmingz.

nope, exactly. Governments are supposed to promote the general will of society, not promote whatever is bad for everyone else but happens to be good for Matriel.

Governments are supposed to protect the individual. Anything else is a varying form of tyranny.


5th amendment plz

Yet property has been taken for non-public use without just compensation. So, obviously the government isn't playing by its own rules.

As well as the things that you are advocating promote society over the individual. Which means that individual rights are unimportant against the "needs" of society. Stupid collectivism.


regulation in the United States has really declined since the Reagan era, and there hasn't been a major public outcry lobby for prestine water, thus the quality of our water hasn't changed a tremendous amount since then. In any event, Mexican taxes and government are not very large, and it seems to be run mostly by the municipality level, which, if you've ever heard of the sewage problem in Atlanta, can take decades for any political action to solve it. but as with clean water in the US, the FDA, despite its obvious downsides, does a pretty good job of keeping the food supply safe, moreso anyways than the "free market" could offer.

Mexico's tax rates were only recently changed to be slightly lower than our top income tax bracket. Their government has more power than our Federal government (at least in theory, the Fed doesn't like playing by the rules). If more government is better, there is no reason they shouldn't have better water standards.

And lol about the food supply safe. Private organizations have been crushing the FDA on reports of contanimated food sources. The pet food contanimation being one of the best. The FDA sometimes lagging two weeks behind private websites on reporting brands that weren't safe. The FDA is a big waste of money on the food front alone, let alone what they do to drug prices and the like with their draconian regulations.

[Septus]

Airius, you had some good points on income taxes, but damn, you fall apart when the discussion hits anything surrounding business.

1. Capital gains tax - this affects anyone with a college degree. A lot of people get this thing called stock options. You get them at a pre-determined price (generally 15% lower than market) and can sell at market price on pay day. That becomes a lot less money if you're taxed 50% instead of 15%. And most people who earn more than a burger king employee (read: not you) invest their own personal assets too, in mutual funds if nothing else (or do you just sit on cash in the bank? I bet you do, or would if you had any).

And let's not forget startups and IPO's, I guess you want to completely fuck people who want to create new businesses. Thanks dumb ass.

2. # of jobs - it's not static you dumb bastard. If it was, then asian immigrants couldn't get their visas and come over here and get jobs or start up liquor stores. Are you so stupid that you believe the only way to get a job is to find some one who is willing to hire you? How do you think new businesses are made?

Your fortune 500 bit was even more laughable. Yes there are only 500 companies on the fortune 500, but there are new companies started every day which grow to make their own revenue streams, or if they're lucky, make the fortune 500 (not EVERY company can be the top 500 dumb ass, or it wouldn't be the top 500).

[Airius Droc]

Airius, you had some good points on income taxes, but damn, you fall apart when the discussion hits anything surrounding business.

1. Capital gains tax - this affects anyone with a college degree. A lot of people get this thing called stock options. You get them at a pre-determined price (generally 15% lower than market) and can sell at market price on pay day. That becomes a lot less money if you're taxed 50% instead of 15%. And most people who earn more than a burger king employee (read: not you) invest their own personal assets too, in mutual funds if nothing else (or do you just sit on cash in the bank? I bet you do, or would if you had any).

Yeah, it would affect stock options. Not many people get them though.

401k withdrawn early, that's all capital gains would affect anyone (that wasn't already well off)

And let's not forget startups and IPO's, I guess you want to completely fuck people who want to create new businesses. Thanks dumb ass.

They're failing already...here's an idea, have a better business model.

2. # of jobs - it's not static you dumb bastard. If it was, then asian immigrants couldn't get their visas and come over here and get jobs or start up liquor stores. Are you so stupid that you believe the only way to get a job is to find some one who is willing to hire you? How do you think new businesses are made?

So the answer to the job losses are to have unemployed people start up their own businesses? Essentially, that's what you're saying.

Your fortune 500 bit was even more laughable. Yes there are only 500 companies on the fortune 500, but there are new companies started every day which grow to make their own revenue streams, or if they're lucky, make the fortune 500 (not EVERY company can be the top 500 dumb ass, or it wouldn't be the top 500).

I didn't bring up the Fortune 500, someone else did. That was my way of saying that it was a dumb example.

But yeah, that's exactly what I was saying...if there are only 500 at the top, you can't expect anyone else to be at the top unless they replace one of the 500. That's relevant because many people on here pretend that the job market isn't limited. It is. Success in business is limited and relative to all the other companies and all the other workers.

It's not like if you start a business and it takes off you're going to at some point be "the winner." Just like if you get a great job. There's no "end game". There's no Magic Candy King at the end of the Candy Land Board.

But to the main point, there are limited jobs at any given point. If there weren't, then the workers would have negotiation power - and they wouldn't need a minimum wage.

[Traep]

Airius, you had some good points on income taxes, but damn, you fall apart when the discussion hits anything surrounding business.

1. Capital gains tax - this affects anyone with a college degree. A lot of people get this thing called stock options. You get them at a pre-determined price (generally 15% lower than market) and can sell at market price on pay day. That becomes a lot less money if you're taxed 50% instead of 15%. And most people who earn more than a burger king employee (read: not you) invest their own personal assets too, in mutual funds if nothing else (or do you just sit on cash in the bank? I bet you do, or would if you had any).

And let's not forget startups and IPO's, I guess you want to completely fuck people who want to create new businesses. Thanks dumb ass.

2. # of jobs - it's not static you dumb bastard. If it was, then asian immigrants couldn't get their visas and come over here and get jobs or start up liquor stores. Are you so stupid that you believe the only way to get a job is to find some one who is willing to hire you? How do you think new businesses are made?

Your fortune 500 bit was even more laughable. Yes there are only 500 companies on the fortune 500, but there are new companies started every day which grow to make their own revenue streams, or if they're lucky, make the fortune 500 (not EVERY company can be the top 500 dumb ass, or it wouldn't be the top 500).

Uhh, your #1 doesn't make sense as the capital gains increase would be linked to income level. Unless you're making over $100k-$150k a year it won't affect you at all and even then it won't be anything like the 50% that you claim. At most it would be 28% which is where it was during Clinton's terms.

#2 Jobs aren't static but they really aren't infinite either. That said, if you're willing to do absolutely anything at any wage then you're rarely going to be able to say that you can't get a job. But the part that I find some real issue with is your idea about starting a business if you can't find a job. How on earth are you going to start a business when you're in that situation? You're most likely scraping the bottom at that point and you're going to go to some bank to get a loan so you can open up a business? That's crazy. Even if you could get the loan you'd be taking on a huge risk when you're at a point that you really don't have the luxury to risk anything financially.

[Airius Droc]

Uhh, your #1 doesn't make sense as the capital gains increase would be linked to income level. Unless you're making over $100k-$150k a year it won't affect you at all and even then it won't be anything like the 50% that you claim. At most it would be 28% which is where it was during Clinton's terms.

I forgot all about that. I get so much misinformation thrown at me about Obama, I start believing the lies myself sometimes.

Too often, it's like I'm having the same pointless conversation multiple times with these people. If there's a positive to it, I do sometimes feel like I'm getting a chance to shoot down some of the bullshit that comes out of Hannity's mouth.

[losinglife]

Not really. With that said, you should be putting as much money in a 401k, after maxing your Roth of course, as possible, so it is really easy to get down to that 15% rate.

duh thats what i said haha. My point was tho if you make 35k you are losing 25%, but if you can hide it down to 32.5k you are only losing 15%.

But in the end you save more.

[Septus]

Yeah, it would affect stock options. Not many people get them though.

Just because your welfare buddies don't get stock options doesn't mean "not many people do." Everyone I know gets stock options. Maybe just because I graduated from college.



They're failing already...here's an idea, have a better business model.

You're a fucking idiot. IPO's get started by trading equity for investment (investment being either capital or your work). If you increase the capital gains tax that hurts people who try and make new businesses (which is one of two ways new jobs are created). This is also the most lucrative method for people to become wealthy, which you've now fucked up the ass.



So the answer to the job losses are to have unemployed people start up their own businesses? Essentially, that's what you're saying.

Uh no, I'm saying if you're not a brainless idiot you can find a niche and create a business - it could use intellectual property, labor, real estate, retail, whatever little niche you've found that would give perceived value to some group of customers.

Obviously I don't expect poor people to do this because they're by and large stupid as hell. But I never said unemployed people could magically create their own business. It's obviously hard work because you have to use your brain, research, etc. But the # of jobs is not static.


But yeah, that's exactly what I was saying...if there are only 500 at the top, you can't expect anyone else to be at the top unless they replace one of the 500. That's relevant because many people on here pretend that the job market isn't limited. It is. Success in business is limited and relative to all the other companies and all the other workers.

It's not like if you start a business and it takes off you're going to at some point be "the winner." Just like if you get a great job. There's no "end game". There's no Magic Candy King at the end of the Candy Land Board.

So? I could still make a pretty good idea and become #501. Or #100000. The point to a business is to create an idea/service/item that has value to some group of people and then sell it.

We don't have absolute knowledge, so there's no magical cap off point like "oh, only 290 million jobs right now so the other 10 million Americans are just fucked." It's not musical chairs you dumb bastard. You just have to come up with a service that has demand - whether it's a unique idea, better quality service/product, whatever.


But to the main point, there are limited jobs at any given point. If there weren't, then the workers would have negotiation power - and they wouldn't need a minimum wage.

Workers don't have negotiation power because they're too stupid to run a business even in their own field. Sorry to say but it's the truth. You're showing it now by spewing your retarded business sense.

[Septus]

Uhh, your #1 doesn't make sense as the capital gains increase would be linked to income level. Unless you're making over $100k-$150k a year it won't affect you at all and even then it won't be anything like the 50% that you claim. At most it would be 28% which is where it was during Clinton's terms.

That's not as bad as the craziness I've heard :P I like Obama more than McCain, so this has nothing to do with that. I just don't like people saying stupid stuff like "capital gains tax only affects rich people."


#2 Jobs aren't static but they really aren't infinite either. That said, if you're willing to do absolutely anything at any wage then you're rarely going to be able to say that you can't get a job. But the part that I find some real issue with is your idea about starting a business if you can't find a job. How on earth are you going to start a business when you're in that situation? You're most likely scraping the bottom at that point and you're going to go to some bank to get a loan so you can open up a business? That's crazy. Even if you could get the loan you'd be taking on a huge risk when you're at a point that you really don't have the luxury to risk anything financially.

I didn't say that poor people with no education could just create a business. I've just heard this retardation from Airius before about how there's a set # of CEO positions in the world and if you're not one of the lucky few thousand people, you have to settle for being a worker bee.

It's fucking stupid, you can be a CEO if you want simply by coming up with your own business idea.

[Vanno]

duh thats what i said haha. My point was tho if you make 35k you are losing 25%, but if you can hide it down to 32.5k you are only losing 15%.

But in the end you save more.

At a certain point, it really isn't worth trying to get to a lower marginal rate, once your 401k contribution is maxed out, there aren't too many hiding options that are worth the time.

[losinglife]

At a certain point, it really isn't worth trying to get to a lower marginal rate, once your 401k contribution is maxed out, there aren't too many hiding options that are worth the time.

haha duh, you are pretty much just repeating what i am saying.

hiding a few grand to drop from 25% - 15% is totally worth it, but once you get to high (max out 401k and other crap) you either cant drop that low, or it wouldnt necesarily be beneficial.

The argument tho is that with Obama you wouldnt need to hide money at the 35k? level i think it was.

I dont even max out my 401k :( while hiding the loots to get me down to the 15% mark. But its enough that i put a good amount into it and avoid a shitty tax.