This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
The disparity between rich and poor
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Atik
If we could get a group of people that would actually allowit to function properly: Communism is one of the greatest forms of government.
The native americans had it pretty good before the old world showed up. And guess what government structure they had...
I couldn't tell if you were joking or not at first. I think we've seen how well Communism works, since Reagan helped bring it down in '91.
That wasn't proper communism AT ALL.
Post by
Adamsm
That wasn't proper communism AT ALL.Then what is proper communism?
Post by
Squishalot
That wasn't proper communism AT ALL.Then what is proper communism?
Not one that overly profits the dictators, for example? A communist dictatorship doesn't really work.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Atik
That wasn't proper communism AT ALL.Then what is proper communism?
Exactly what Karl Marx described: A system in which the government is made unneeded and everyone lives equally.
The USSR, Cuba, and Rwd China were far closer to Socialism.
Post by
Heckler
If we're keeping the focus on the U.S. I have a few more comments. The 'fair' tax is a joke, and the justification given "rich people spend more" is more of a joke. They spend far less as a percentage of their income, and sales/use taxes are extremely regressive in nature.
I could actually accept a flat tax, because it would be much much
much
more equitable than our current loophole filled mess. But a progressive curve on the flat tax would be even better, simply to discourage dynastic wealth buildup. If money wasn't such a powerful political tool, things like this might not be necessary, but controlling DRASTIC wealth is in the best interest of "We the People" as it poses a clear and present danger to our governmental structure (and no one seems willing to address why this is, and how it could be fixed in other ways, campaign finance etc.). Also, I honestly think that if a flat tax were ever
seriously
considered, the Republican Party would all of a sudden become it's biggest enemy (assuming it was done in a truly flat manner, with enforcement teeth). And the other statistic, that "the top 10% pays 70% of the taxes" -- that wouldn't change under a flat tax, it would probably actually get worse (or better, as it were). The top 1% earn 23% of the wealth (more than the bottom 50%), so they probably
should
be providing "their fair share."
Also, I'm one that will bring up the $15 an hour minimum wage usually as a conversation starter, but I do agree it's not a realistic solution, and I don't think it would actually fix much on its own. The reason isn't because a minimum wage is unnecessary or bad, but because our economy is becoming more and more of a service economy, and much less of a manufacturing economy. You can't raise a family on a high-school educated single income anymore, but there's a lot of reasons for that, and the minimum wage isn't one of them. Unions can bargain for their own minimum wages, there's no need for federal control of such things (above a poverty level minimum). If we actually
made
things in the proportion to our GDP like we did in the 50's and 60's, and our tax structure was cleaned up, these problems would take care of themselves (assuming the crusade against Unionization would stop). But the reasons behind this has a lot to do with globalization, and there's definitely no simple answer.
I think, on the whole, the "equality of opportunity" in America is pretty good, and a few small tweaks to the system here and there (rolling back a lot of Reagan's handiwork, for example) could make it even better. I'm a liberal, but I don't hate capitalism, and I don't think America is "beyond repair" -- I think we lost our way a little in the 80's as a Nation, and eventually "We the People" will come back around. It might take another kick in the ass like the 1930's to convince us, but it will happen eventually.
Post by
pezz
The problem with minimum wages is that they tend to contribute as much to unemployment as they do to wage equality.
If you're worth 5 bucks an hour to me, I'd love to pay you five bucks an hour. But given a choice between firing you and paying you 15 bucks an hour, I'm going to fire you every time.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Atik
Why don't we just make a maximum wage that isn't much higher than the minimum wage?
Post by
donnymurph
Why don't we just make a maximum wage that isn't much higher than the minimum wage?
Because the people at the top will simply make even more money,
massively
exacerbating the spikiness of the financial pyramid.
Post by
Atik
Why don't we just make a maximum wage that isn't much higher than the minimum wage?
Because the people at the top will simply make even more money,
massively
exacerbating the spikiness of the financial pyramid.
Wait... how? If the people at the top phsically CAN'T make above a certain amount, how will they make even more?
Post by
donnymurph
/facepalm. Not everyone earns money from wages. If companies are paying their workers less, they are making bigger profits, which means the guy that owns the thing is getting more money, but more people are getting less money.
Post by
Atik
/facepalm. Not everyone earns money from wages. If companies are paying their workers less, they are making bigger profits, which means the guy that owns the thing is getting more money, but more people are getting less money.
Only if the company is privately owned. If it is pubically traded or owned by the government, the head still gets paid just like everyone else and can't take money as he sees fit.
Simply disallow private owner*!@#.
Post by
Squishalot
/facepalm. Not everyone earns money from wages. If companies are paying their workers less, they are making bigger profits, which means the guy that owns the thing is getting more money, but more people are getting less money.
Only if the company is privately owned. If it is pubically traded or owned by the government, the head still gets paid just like everyone else and can't take money as he sees fit.
Simply disallow private owner*!@#.
So basically, make everything government owned? And therefore, everybody is on a government wage, which you've specified as the minimum wage? And in order to fund this, everybody is taxed at the same rate?
Hello Big Brother.
Post by
Atik
/facepalm. Not everyone earns money from wages. If companies are paying their workers less, they are making bigger profits, which means the guy that owns the thing is getting more money, but more people are getting less money.
Only if the company is privately owned. If it is pubically traded or owned by the government, the head still gets paid just like everyone else and can't take money as he sees fit.
Simply disallow private owner*!@#.
So basically, make everything government owned? And therefore, everybody is on a government wage, which you've specified as the minimum wage? And in order to fund this, everybody is taxed at the same rate?
Hello Big Brother.
It works.
Post by
pezz
Really? Your examples so far have included 'some Native Americans or something that I read about once.' And even that was disputed, which is surprising since it was so admirably vague.
Post by
Perkocet
/facepalm. Not everyone earns money from wages. If companies are paying their workers less, they are making bigger profits, which means the guy that owns the thing is getting more money, but more people are getting less money.
Only if the company is privately owned. If it is pubically traded or owned by the government, the head still gets paid just like everyone else and can't take money as he sees fit.
Simply disallow private owner*!@#.
So basically, make everything government owned? And therefore, everybody is on a government wage, which you've specified as the minimum wage? And in order to fund this, everybody is taxed at the same rate?
Hello Big Brother.
It works.
lolbrb Soviet Russia's on the phone.
Post by
Atik
/facepalm. Not everyone earns money from wages. If companies are paying their workers less, they are making bigger profits, which means the guy that owns the thing is getting more money, but more people are getting less money.
Only if the company is privately owned. If it is pubically traded or owned by the government, the head still gets paid just like everyone else and can't take money as he sees fit.
Simply disallow private owner*!@#.
So basically, make everything government owned? And therefore, everybody is on a government wage, which you've specified as the minimum wage? And in order to fund this, everybody is taxed at the same rate?
Hello Big Brother.
It works.
lolbrb Soviet Russia's on the phone.
Just don't try to wage a war against Afganastan.
Oh, and don't let a power-hungry psycho have power.
Post by
Squishalot
It works.
Works for who?
Post by
Atik
You wanted the poor and rich to be equal.
Post by
pezz
Your responses have been getting more and more glib. That's usually the mark of someone who didn't have any good sources to begin with but is having a go anyway.
To repeat, since you side stepped the point:
Your examples so far have included 'some Native Americans or something that I read about once.' And even that was disputed,
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.