Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Brain357]

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

It is an option. No employer can make you do anything. It's decided as a condition of the job. If you don't want to sign any agreement, then take a job with another company.

In our company my employer promotes from within. We move our straight truck drivers into tractor-trailers instead of hiring outsiders. It gives my employer an advantage because our straight truck drivers already know the system, our customers, and already familiar with the places they will be going. He sends those drivers out with one of our tractor-trailer drivers for training after hours and on Saturdays. When the straight truck driver has enough experience, he and our tractor-trailer driver goes to the DMV for the test.

After they are licensed they continue doing the same job they always have. We use them as spares for when we take time off for illness or vacations, so they continue making the same money unless they are driving the tractor-trailer.

My employer makes them sign a three year contract in exchange for the training and licensing. After that three years, they are free to work for anybody they want including our competitors. Now if my employer didn't do that, they could use the license to start driving a tractor-trailer with another company right away, and the time my employer paid the trainer, the fuel, the wear and tear on the vehicle would be all for nothing. We wouldn't have a backup driver and the newly licensed driver would be making more money somewhere else, plus we would lose an employee at the same time.

My employer only offers this opportunity and it's not mandated. It's purely optional. If you decline the offer, no hard feelings. You keep your job, continue doing what you always did. No harm done.

Yes but when they all require it you either work or don't. They are not capitalism. Do you understand the importance of competition in capitalism?

Most places don't do that, so it's not a matter of not being able to work for anybody. You can always find plenty of places with non-conditional employment.

It's the same way unions used to operate before Right-To-Work became a new law in some states. If you wanted to work at company X, you had to join the union. If you didn't want to join the union, they couldn't offer you the job. You simply went to work someplace else if that was a problem with you. But if you wanted that job at company X, the condition was you had to join the union and stay there.

They are everywhere now. And they are anti capitalism. And you support anti capitalism obviously.
Perspective | Even janitors have noncompetes now. Nobody is safe.

 

[Brain357]

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

It is an option. No employer can make you do anything. It's decided as a condition of the job. If you don't want to sign any agreement, then take a job with another company.

In our company my employer promotes from within. We move our straight truck drivers into tractor-trailers instead of hiring outsiders. It gives my employer an advantage because our straight truck drivers already know the system, our customers, and already familiar with the places they will be going. He sends those drivers out with one of our tractor-trailer drivers for training after hours and on Saturdays. When the straight truck driver has enough experience, he and our tractor-trailer driver goes to the DMV for the test.

After they are licensed they continue doing the same job they always have. We use them as spares for when we take time off for illness or vacations, so they continue making the same money unless they are driving the tractor-trailer.

My employer makes them sign a three year contract in exchange for the training and licensing. After that three years, they are free to work for anybody they want including our competitors. Now if my employer didn't do that, they could use the license to start driving a tractor-trailer with another company right away, and the time my employer paid the trainer, the fuel, the wear and tear on the vehicle would be all for nothing. We wouldn't have a backup driver and the newly licensed driver would be making more money somewhere else, plus we would lose an employee at the same time.

My employer only offers this opportunity and it's not mandated. It's purely optional. If you decline the offer, no hard feelings. You keep your job, continue doing what you always did. No harm done.

Yes but when they all require it you either work or don't. They are not capitalism. Do you understand the importance of competition in capitalism?

Most places don't do that, so it's not a matter of not being able to work for anybody. You can always find plenty of places with non-conditional employment.

It's the same way unions used to operate before Right-To-Work became a new law in some states. If you wanted to work at company X, you had to join the union. If you didn't want to join the union, they couldn't offer you the job. You simply went to work someplace else if that was a problem with you. But if you wanted that job at company X, the condition was you had to join the union and stay there.

They are everywhere now. And they are anti capitalism. And you support anti capitalism obviously.
Perspective | Even janitors have noncompetes now. Nobody is safe.

 

[Winston]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

Years ago I worked at a truck stop. Usually I worked second shift but when the manager went on vacation I ran the store. FIrst thing every morning I was told to call the gas station right down the road and work out the gas price for the day. That was "collusion", and it was illegal, and I am pretty sure that practice still continues today.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa. That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Or supermarkets. In this area Lowes dominates the super grocery store market. There simply is no competition. Go south and it is Harris Teeter. Go west and it is Ingle's. If a town has an Ingles's they don't have a Harris Teeter or a Lowes. And if they have a Lowe's they don't have a Harris Teeter or an Ingles. They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition.

 

[Winston]

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

NO.
You are putting words in my mouth to maintain your numb nuts Political position.
I'm saying WE the people, through our Govt, have decided that Progressive Income Taxes are the best way to pay for needed functions.
and that they may need to be more Progressive to make sure we still have a Middle Class.
A Middle Class is what made/makes America the great country it is, and that is in good deal a result of Progessive income taxes.

If you want purely "fair", such as a flat tax, some people will end up with all the marbles, and we'll then have a 'Serf-and-Castle' system
so get yo gardening tools BOY, you and Yo relatives will be growing my food, trimming my lawn, and feeding My livestock.
BOY.

Understand low IQ guy with a blinded Partisan view??
`

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

Where does the money the rich have come from? Do they print that shit off or something?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

 

[Brain357]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

The people not paying have nothing to spare. Many are probably deeply in debt already. The top 20% has plenty to spare. And given many are rich off cronyism they owe the government!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

NO.
You are putting words in my mouth to maintain your numb nuts Political position.
I'm saying WE the people, through our Govt, have decided that Progressive Income Taxes are the best way to pay for needed functions.
and that they may need to be more Progressive to make sure we still have a Middle Class.
A Middle Class is what made/makes America the great country it is, and that is in good deal a result of Progessive income taxes.

If you want purely "fair", such as a flat tax, some people will end up with all the marbles, and we'll then have a 'Serf-and-Castle' system
so get yo gardening tools BOY, you and Yo relatives will be growing my food, trimming my lawn, and feeding My livestock.
BOY.

Understand low IQ guy with a blinded Partisan view??
`

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

Where does the money the rich have come from? Do they print that shit off or something?

No, we give them our money. That's how they get it. Sometimes we beg them to take our money. You see those people standing outside a store the day after Thanksgiving; some sleeping in sleeping bags, bringing their own chairs to sit in line, and when the store opens up, people charge in. Or go to the Apple store after a new iPhone comes out. Good luck getting in there.

We all send our money to the top. Unless you are Amish, it's something that can't be helped.

 

[Brain357]

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

NO.
You are putting words in my mouth to maintain your numb nuts Political position.
I'm saying WE the people, through our Govt, have decided that Progressive Income Taxes are the best way to pay for needed functions.
and that they may need to be more Progressive to make sure we still have a Middle Class.
A Middle Class is what made/makes America the great country it is, and that is in good deal a result of Progessive income taxes.

If you want purely "fair", such as a flat tax, some people will end up with all the marbles, and we'll then have a 'Serf-and-Castle' system
so get yo gardening tools BOY, you and Yo relatives will be growing my food, trimming my lawn, and feeding My livestock.
BOY.

Understand low IQ guy with a blinded Partisan view??
`

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

Where does the money the rich have come from? Do they print that shit off or something?

No, we give them our money. That's how they get it. Sometimes we beg them to take our money. You see those people standing outside a store the day after Thanksgiving; some sleeping in sleeping bags, bringing their own chairs to sit in line, and when the store opens up, people charge in. Or go to the Apple store after a new iPhone comes out. Good luck getting in there.

We all send our money to the top. Unless you are Amish, it's something that can't be helped.

And if we had good capitalism everyone would be doing good. Instead we have rampant cronyism and monopolies and collusion....

 

[Winston]

From 2010 to 2016 the wealth of the world's billionaires increased by half a trillion dollars. During the same time period the wealth of the poorest 50% dropped by a trillion dollars. Tell me, where was the wealth created? Can you say rent seeking?

62 people own same as half world – Oxfam

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

The people not paying have nothing to spare. Many are probably deeply in debt already. The top 20% has plenty to spare. And given many are rich off cronyism they owe the government!

Well you're in luck, because they mostly pay for the government. As I posted earlier, if we had a 70% federal income tax rate on the rich, with their local taxes, they would be paying about 85% of their earnings to various governments depending on where they lived. Would you work if government was going to take 85% of all you earn? Well......neither would they. Then that would have a drastic effect on our economy and markets where many of us have our retirement plans in.

 

[Brain357]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

The people not paying have nothing to spare. Many are probably deeply in debt already. The top 20% has plenty to spare. And given many are rich off cronyism they owe the government!

Well you're in luck, because they mostly pay for the government. As I posted earlier, if we had a 70% federal income tax rate on the rich, with their local taxes, they would be paying about 85% of their earnings to various governments depending on where they lived. Would you work if government was going to take 85% of all you earn? Well......neither would they. Then that would have a drastic effect on our economy and markets where many of us have our retirement plans in.

Last I checked they are talking 70% for what is made over 10 million. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

Years ago I worked at a truck stop. Usually I worked second shift but when the manager went on vacation I ran the store. FIrst thing every morning I was told to call the gas station right down the road and work out the gas price for the day. That was "collusion", and it was illegal, and I am pretty sure that practice still continues today.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa. That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Or supermarkets. In this area Lowes dominates the super grocery store market. There simply is no competition. Go south and it is Harris Teeter. Go west and it is Ingle's. If a town has an Ingles's they don't have a Harris Teeter or a Lowes. And if they have a Lowe's they don't have a Harris Teeter or an Ingles. They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition.

I seriously doubt all these companies are participating in illegal activities. Don't get me wrong, it does happen, but it does so legally.

I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. I have no insurance so I pay for all my medication in cash. After a while, insulin kept going up and up. It got to the point of $70.00 a vial, and I use four a month. When I started it was about $25.00 a vial.

Looking for answers, I wrote to the manufacturer. No coherent response. Then I was discussing this problem with a pharmacist when I went to check out their prices (which were the same as everybody else) and she told me Walmart had generic insulin. Generic insulin? I didn't even like the sounds of that, so I didn't think much else of it.

When it did finally hit the $70.00 a vial range, I had no choice, I had to see what Walmart was offering. So I stopped by and sure enough, their insulin was $24.99 a vial. Here is the catch: it was made by the exact same company that produced the insulin I normally bought. The only difference was there was a tiny ® on the package. It stood for Walmart's brand called Reliance.

Bottom line is the people that manufacture insulin made a dirty deal with Walmart. They gave them a huge discount and drastically increased their prices for all other drug stores to make up the loss. People with prescription insurance don't even pay attention because they only pay a small co-pay. For the rest of us, we are forced to find a Walmart or Sam's club to buy our medication. I seriously doubt they are doing anything illegal, but it is immoral.

 

[Brain357]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

Years ago I worked at a truck stop. Usually I worked second shift but when the manager went on vacation I ran the store. FIrst thing every morning I was told to call the gas station right down the road and work out the gas price for the day. That was "collusion", and it was illegal, and I am pretty sure that practice still continues today.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa. That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Or supermarkets. In this area Lowes dominates the super grocery store market. There simply is no competition. Go south and it is Harris Teeter. Go west and it is Ingle's. If a town has an Ingles's they don't have a Harris Teeter or a Lowes. And if they have a Lowe's they don't have a Harris Teeter or an Ingles. They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition.

I seriously doubt all these companies are participating in illegal activities. Don't get me wrong, it does happen, but it does so legally.

I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. I have no insurance so I pay for all my medication in cash. After a while, insulin kept going up and up. It got to the point of $70.00 a vial, and I use four a month. When I started it was about $25.00 a vial.

Looking for answers, I wrote to the manufacturer. No coherent response. Then I was discussing this problem with a pharmacist when I went to check out their prices (which were the same as everybody else) and she told me Walmart had generic insulin. Generic insulin? I didn't even like the sounds of that, so I didn't think much else of it.

When it did finally hit the $70.00 a vial range, I had no choice, I had to see what Walmart was offering. So I stopped by and sure enough, their insulin was $24.99 a vial. Here is the catch: it was made by the exact same company that produced the insulin I normally bought. The only difference was there was a tiny ® on the package. It stood for Walmart's brand called Reliance.

Bottom line is the people that manufacture insulin made a dirty deal with Walmart. They gave them a huge discount and drastically increased their prices for all other drug stores to make up the loss. People with prescription insurance don't even pay attention because they only pay a small co-pay. For the rest of us, we are forced to find a Walmart or Sam's club to buy our medication. I seriously doubt they are doing anything illegal, but it is immoral.

Our economy is a dirty deal. It's filled with cronyism and monopolies and collusion....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

The people not paying have nothing to spare. Many are probably deeply in debt already. The top 20% has plenty to spare. And given many are rich off cronyism they owe the government!

Well you're in luck, because they mostly pay for the government. As I posted earlier, if we had a 70% federal income tax rate on the rich, with their local taxes, they would be paying about 85% of their earnings to various governments depending on where they lived. Would you work if government was going to take 85% of all you earn? Well......neither would they. Then that would have a drastic effect on our economy and markets where many of us have our retirement plans in.

Last I checked they are talking 70% for what is made over 10 million. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

Of course you'd be fine with that. You're not paying it.

 

[Brain357]

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`

Here is the problem: the top 20% pay 70% of all income taxes collected. Nearly half of our population pays no income tax at all. Wouldn't it make more sense to start having everybody pay something instead of taking more from people that are already paying too much?

In our county we have a sales tax of 8 cents on the dollar. Outside of food and beverage items, everybody pays this tax: the rich, the poor, the middle-class on everything we buy. I can't see why this idea can't be implemented across the US. On smaller ticket items, it wouldn't even be noticeable. And those rich people buying big buck items would still be paying the most. But at least everybody would have a dog in the race.

The problem in our country is that politicians promise us this goody and that goody, and send somebody else the bill. People would be more hesitant to support that system if they had to pay a little bit for those goodies themselves. Because it seems no matter who is in charge of Congress, they can't control spending.

The people not paying have nothing to spare. Many are probably deeply in debt already. The top 20% has plenty to spare. And given many are rich off cronyism they owe the government!

Well you're in luck, because they mostly pay for the government. As I posted earlier, if we had a 70% federal income tax rate on the rich, with their local taxes, they would be paying about 85% of their earnings to various governments depending on where they lived. Would you work if government was going to take 85% of all you earn? Well......neither would they. Then that would have a drastic effect on our economy and markets where many of us have our retirement plans in.

Last I checked they are talking 70% for what is made over 10 million. Yeah, I'd be fine with that.

Of course you'd be fine with that. You're not paying it.

Yes only those who are benefitting from all the cronyism would be paying it. Seems right that they should.

 

[abu afak]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

Years ago I worked at a truck stop. Usually I worked second shift but when the manager went on vacation I ran the store. FIrst thing every morning I was told to call the gas station right down the road and work out the gas price for the day. That was "collusion", and it was illegal, and I am pretty sure that practice still continues today.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa. That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Or supermarkets. In this area Lowes dominates the super grocery store market. There simply is no competition. Go south and it is Harris Teeter. Go west and it is Ingle's. If a town has an Ingles's they don't have a Harris Teeter or a Lowes. And if they have a Lowe's they don't have a Harris Teeter or an Ingles. They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition.

I seriously doubt all these companies are participating in illegal activities. Don't get me wrong, it does happen, but it does so legally.

I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. I have no insurance so I pay for all my medication in cash. After a while, insulin kept going up and up. It got to the point of $70.00 a vial, and I use four a month. When I started it was about $25.00 a vial.

Looking for answers, I wrote to the manufacturer. No coherent response. Then I was discussing this problem with a pharmacist when I went to check out their prices (which were the same as everybody else) and she told me Walmart had generic insulin. Generic insulin? I didn't even like the sounds of that, so I didn't think much else of it.

When it did finally hit the $70.00 a vial range, I had no choice, I had to see what Walmart was offering. So I stopped by and sure enough, their insulin was $24.99 a vial. Here is the catch: it was made by the exact same company that produced the insulin I normally bought. The only difference was there was a tiny ® on the package. It stood for Walmart's brand called Reliance.

Bottom line is the people that manufacture insulin made a dirty deal with Walmart. They gave them a huge discount and drastically increased their prices for all other drug stores to make up the loss. People with prescription insurance don't even pay attention because they only pay a small co-pay. For the rest of us, we are forced to find a Walmart or Sam's club to buy our medication. I seriously doubt they are doing anything illegal, but it is immoral.

That's Capitalism!
What the market will bare.
But sorry you need the drug.
best

 

[Brain357]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

Years ago I worked at a truck stop. Usually I worked second shift but when the manager went on vacation I ran the store. FIrst thing every morning I was told to call the gas station right down the road and work out the gas price for the day. That was "collusion", and it was illegal, and I am pretty sure that practice still continues today.

Another form of collusion that is pretty common is between Coke and Pepsi. They have worked out a deal with supermarkets where their products are on sale on alternating weeks. When Pepsi is on sale Coke is not and vice versa. That allows them to "segment the market", meaning they skim off the price shoppers from the brand loyalists. And yes, it is illegal as well.

Or supermarkets. In this area Lowes dominates the super grocery store market. There simply is no competition. Go south and it is Harris Teeter. Go west and it is Ingle's. If a town has an Ingles's they don't have a Harris Teeter or a Lowes. And if they have a Lowe's they don't have a Harris Teeter or an Ingles. They have carved up the state into little fiefdoms and in so doing, collect "rents" by being able to charge higher prices than they would if faced with local competition.

I seriously doubt all these companies are participating in illegal activities. Don't get me wrong, it does happen, but it does so legally.

I'm an insulin dependent diabetic. I have no insurance so I pay for all my medication in cash. After a while, insulin kept going up and up. It got to the point of $70.00 a vial, and I use four a month. When I started it was about $25.00 a vial.

Looking for answers, I wrote to the manufacturer. No coherent response. Then I was discussing this problem with a pharmacist when I went to check out their prices (which were the same as everybody else) and she told me Walmart had generic insulin. Generic insulin? I didn't even like the sounds of that, so I didn't think much else of it.

When it did finally hit the $70.00 a vial range, I had no choice, I had to see what Walmart was offering. So I stopped by and sure enough, their insulin was $24.99 a vial. Here is the catch: it was made by the exact same company that produced the insulin I normally bought. The only difference was there was a tiny ® on the package. It stood for Walmart's brand called Reliance.

Bottom line is the people that manufacture insulin made a dirty deal with Walmart. They gave them a huge discount and drastically increased their prices for all other drug stores to make up the loss. People with prescription insurance don't even pay attention because they only pay a small co-pay. For the rest of us, we are forced to find a Walmart or Sam's club to buy our medication. I seriously doubt they are doing anything illegal, but it is immoral.

That's Capitalism!
What the market will bare.
But sorry you need the drug.
best

That is not capitalism. That is cronyism, which ray also supports.

 

[abu afak]

That is not capitalism. That is cronyism, which ray also supports.

Cronyism is just two capitalists acting in their own financial interest.

That's another thing we had to regulate, Monopolies and Price Fixing.
Cut throat/100% Capitalism lead to what we had 100+ years ago when Rockefeller, Morgan, etc had 80% oh the country's wealth.

PS: watching Bezos able to run so many categories I'm wondering what's next? Real Estate?

Google etc, all buy 30 or 40 cos every year just to make sure no good ideas aren't theirs.
`

 

[Andylusion]

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

And as I have pointed out to you, when marginal tax rates on the wealthy were higher they carried less of the total tax burden. Funny that.

Seems like what would happen when they collude and hoard all the wealth.

When you jump up the tax rate, the wealthy move more of their wealth into tax havens. The harder you try and pin them down, the less and less you will get from them.

As for "collude and hoard all the wealth".... that is ridiculous. In a free market capitalist system, it is not possible to collude and hoard all the wealth. Again, 80% of wealthy in this country, are first generation rich. According to this theory that is impossible. How could they be first generation rich, if all the wealthy people were colluding and hoarding the wealth?

Wealth is not static. You can't just keep in a bottle for all eternity. It is either being created, or destroyed. It is in constant flux.

In a socialist system, where government controls the economy, then it is possible to collude and hoard wealth. The state owned companies in China are a perfect example. They shut out any new people from competing with the state owned companies.... which is why the super wealthy and elite in China, were those connected to the communist party, and no one else ever got rich under their system.

When they liberalized, and switched to Capitalism, suddenly they have a massive group of new wealthy people. People who started businesses, created companies, and now the state owned companies are minority of the economy. The rich and wealthy connected to the communists, are now a minority in the country.

Because people created wealth. They didn't get it from the elites connected to government. They created new wealth, which is why China has grown so quickly.

No, when you increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthy they don't pour all their money into tax havens. But even if they do, those tax havens are often times job creators. Just a couple miles from my house, at the slopes of a mountain, lies Hawks Ridge Nursery. It was created as a "tax haven", a tax writeoff for the wealthy landowner. Now it is one of the country's largest supplier of shrubs and ornamental flowers. If the tax rate was lower the owner never would have created that business.

Why do you think the rich lobbied Congress to lower their taxes? Because they wanted to work harder and generate more business? Because they wanted to take more risk? Hell no, it is because they wanted to work less and get more money. They wanted to take less risk and get higher returns. I mean this ain't rocket science.

Here is the deal. The rich have come to enjoy a certain standard of living. No different than Joe Sixpack. What does Joe Sixpack do when he encounters a new expense that eats into his standard of living? He fawking takes a second job. So if we increase the tax rate on the wealthy, in order for them to enjoy their same standard of living, they will have to go out and take more risk, they will have to create more jobs. Do you really thing they are going to pick up their toys and go home? What, make no damn money just to spite the government? It is comical the way people have been trained by the elites.

And no, 80% of the Forbes 400 did not start with nothing. As Jim Hightowers says, most of them were born on third base and think they hit a triple.

REPORT: Forbes 400 Misleads About Wealth and Opportunity in the U.S.

I love your link. "20% received sufficient wealth to make the list from their inheritance alone."

Compared to the claim made by a survey of the wealthy which found that 80% are first generation rich.

So................. 20% got enough wealth to be rich from inheritance..... which is supposed to be your contradiction that 80% are first generation rich? Unless you had public education.... wouldn't your link largely validate the claim?

No, when you increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthy they don't pour all their money into tax havens. But even if they do, those tax havens are often times job creators.

But even if they do?

Proponents of this view often point to the 1950s, when the top federal income tax rate was 91 percent for most of the decade.[1] However, despite these high marginal rates, the top 1 percent of taxpayers in the 1950s only paid about 42 percent of their income in taxes. As a result, the tax burden on high-income households today is only slightly lower than what these households faced in the 1950s.​

Taxes on the Rich Were Not Much Higher in the 1950s - Tax Foundation

There is no "if they do".... They do. When tax rates are high, the rich avoid the taxes. That's why there is a huge difference between the effective rate, and the marginal rate.

Millionaires Flee California After Tax Hike

Millionaires Go Missing

TaxProf Blog: Oregon's Millionaires' Tax Drives Millionaires Out of State

This isn't a debatable point. The wealthy do change how they live, to avoid taxes.... as we all would.

But even if they do, those tax havens are often times job creators. Just a couple miles from my house, at the slopes of a mountain, lies Hawks Ridge Nursery. It was created as a "tax haven", a tax writeoff for the wealthy landowner. Now it is one of the country's largest supplier of shrubs and ornamental flowers. If the tax rate was lower the owner never would have created that business.

That seems entirely unlikely. I know enough about tax law, to know that buying land, does not count as a tax write off. Further, unless the business was losing money year over year, you can't get a tax write off from it.

If the business was losing money, they likely were not hiring people at that time.

I wager your understanding of how that works is flawed.

However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that this is true. It would have to mean that the wealthy land owner was avoiding a higher tax, by investing in something with a lower tax.

The wealthy land owner could have invested in something else. For example, would you rather he invest in a major national company that would have hired possibly millions of people? Or Hawks Ridge Nursery? If the taxes being high, resulted in him investing in something just to offset taxes, instead of something that would have provided growth to the entire country.... was that a good trade off?

No, it was not. Unfortunately, you'll never know what good could have been done.

That said.... the truth is, most wealthy do put their money into tax havens, that are not a nursery. Apple put billions into a tax haven, and it did in fact create thousands of jobs, just like you said..... except for Ireland, not the United States. Many wealthy invest overseas. High taxes drives that.

Why do you think the rich lobbied Congress to lower their taxes? Because they wanted to work harder and generate more business? Because they wanted to take more risk? Hell no, it is because they wanted to work less and get more money. They wanted to take less risk and get higher returns. I mean this ain't rocket science.

Well yeah, of course. That's *MY* point.

Think about it this way..... Let's say your tax rate is 90%. You make a million, and lose $900K. That would suck right? Well what if you could spend $200,000 on lobbying, and get a small exemption that reduces your tax rate by 40%. You save $400,000. That's a ton of work, and a risk of the media finding out, and all this hassle with the scum of Washington.... for just $200K. Is that worth it?

But what if you made $100 Million? Now you are saving $40 Million dollars, by spending $200K in lobbying.

Is that worth it? Yes! Of course it is.

Now let's back up. What if your tax rate is only 30%, and the best you could hope for, is a few percentage points of tax reduction? Is it still worth it? NO.

This is why the politicians love high tax rates. They love being able to sell those tax exemptions. The love raking in the lobbying money. They love selling "protection" from the government.

It's a mafia job. People were not calling up Al Gore in his office. Al Gore was calling up people from his office, and shaking them down for money.

And they want you to believe that taxes benefit you. No, they benefit the government elite. Everyone in government knows that no one is going to pay that 70% tax AOC started babbling about. They know this, because they themselves are going to be the ones pushing tax exemptions in exchange for lobbying money.

As for making more money while doing less work.... no they already made the money. You are just trying to take the money they already made, and is rightfully theirs. They are not trying to be lazy. If they were lazy, they wouldn't have the income you complain about them having.

So if we increase the tax rate on the wealthy, in order for them to enjoy their same standard of living, they will have to go out and take more risk, they will have to create more jobs. Do you really thing they are going to pick up their toys and go home? What, make no damn money just to spite the government?

Are you crazy? If you do that to me, and increase my tax rate, so now I have to get two jobs, to have the same standard of living I have now, you think I'm just going to roll with that?
No. Of course not. I'll pack up and leave.

Yes, that is exactly what I claim the rich will do. In fact, I know that's what the rich will do, because they did it that way in the past.

In fact, if you read the history of Ronald Reagan, the primary reason Reagan was opposed to taxes, is because he had to deal with that himself. Reagan realize that after doing a film, he would be in the top tax bracket, and lose all his money to the government. So he figured out.... why work?

Reagan would specifically stop working, go to his ranch, ride horses, and travel around with his wife, and do nothing for months on end. Until the next year, and then he would start working again.

And yes, the rich do this as well in different ways.

They may not stop working completely, but they might invest in a company in Sweden instead of America.

But often the super wealthy find other ways to conceal their wealth. Take Warren Buffet. As much as Buffet is a darling of the left-wing, and as much as he talks about how the rich should pay more taxes, Buffet is likely one of the most sly and cunning tax avoidance people on the planet.

He has a set salary of $100,000 a year. The top marginal rate is only on income over $500K. You could raise the top marginal rate to 99%, and Buffet wouldn't pay a penny more in tax.

Buffet owns the vast majority of shares in Berkshire Hathaway, and yet specifically has the company setup to not pay dividends. This avoids taxes on what would be his substantial dividend income. Instead what money would be used for dividends, is used to buy back shares of the company, which make Buffets shares in the company more valuable, while still not paying a single penny in tax.

Buffet also uses his stock in the company to purchase other companies, but he is extremely careful to keep his stake in the companies that he purchases, low enough to not trigger them being a purchased asset by the IRS, and getting taxed on it.

Even the last few years, Buffet famously pledged to give away most of his wealth. But Buffet didn't tell you was that Buffet has carefully crafted this giveaway to avoid taxes. First, he doesn't sell the stock he owns, and give the money to charities. Instead he donates the stock itself, which of course avoids any taxes. Not only that, but he also has only been donating exactly how much stock is needed to reach the charitable deduction cap. So not only does he avoid taxes on the sale of the stock, but he gets a tax deduction on his earnings from the charitable donation, and does not donate one dime over the deduction cap.

And why wouldn't a rich person do this? They all do this. And we all, if we could, would also do it.

When you poo poo the idea that the rich are going to pack up their ball, and leave...... they do this! All the time. Happens all the time.

In France, they had rich people, closing their businesses, and moving out of the country. They would reopen in Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Venezuela, had rich people showing up in Spain, Miami, and Brazil. Cuba had people coming to the US. Greece, all over Europe.

Happens.... ALL THE TIME. All the time.

If you try and pin down the rich in the US, and beat on them with taxes, they absolutely will leave. No question or doubt in my mind.

 

[Andylusion]

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

Actually that isn't entirely true.

The number of non-compete agreements I've had to sign, is about 2. And generally the problem is that companies pay money to have you trained, and then you jump ship and work for someone else.

Now if you can put yourself in the other person's shoes, you can kind of grasp why this would tick you off. You lose money on training someone, only to have them run off and work for a competitor.

Would you like to pay money to train the employee for the guy who is trying to put you out of business?

Again, just think about it. Of course that would suck. Of course you would want to have a non-compete agreement. Do you really want to train the people who are trying to run you out of business? No.

That however is far cry from saying you are preventing people from engaging in capitalism. Most non-compete agreements have a limited time frame. Even those with longer time frames, tend to not be enforced. Courts rarely enforce long-term non-competes.

Further, non-competes usually are only effective in a specific area. So for example if I sign a non-compete with a lawn company, and then I open my own company, as long as I open my company in another city they usually can't enforce a non-compete.

And sometimes you simply can't enforce a non-compete because there is no money in it. For example a locksmith had a trainee who quit and opened his own locksmiths business. There was nothing he could do to stop him. The amount of money he would spend suing, was greater than how much he could ever get from him, and that's assuming he won.

Lastly, there are many other ways to find a settlement with a non-compete that do not cause you to be shut down. You can make payments. Some give non-voting stock in their company, to the other party.

Non-competes are not on the same level as Unions which have a monopoly over the entire market, and you either pay your union dues or you can't be a welder.

The employees should be there because they are happy with their job and wages. Not because they were forced to sign a paper when they took their job. People don't jump ship when they are happy. The employee wins when they can put their services on the market and get raises. Non competes make it so you can't get hired by the people who would value your skills the most. Non competes are not good capitalism.

Then don't sign a non-compete. Don't take the job. Go someplace else and work.

If you are saying the employee is getting nothing from the employer, then they already have the skills, and should "put their services on the market and get a raise", right? You don't have to get a job with a non-compete to do that.

Again... the problem is when you get a job, and they train you, and then you immediately jump ship and work for a competitor.

Again.... you yourself would have a fit, if someone did that to you, and started hurting your business. You would be the first to support the idea of a non-compete if you were the one being harmed by an ex-employee that you trained at your expense, who then harmed your business.

And you are lying if you say otherwise. Honestly, don't even try. You are just lying to me, if you claim you wouldn't.

That can't be done as too many corps require a non compete now. What world are you living in? Nobody jumps ship if they are paid and treated well. Non competes are not capitalism. You sure know your anti capitalism propaganda.

Again, I've had about 30 different jobs. I'm like a professional new employee. I've had 2 non-competes. One was for contract IT support, which was basically, don't open an IT company and compete against us.

It only lasted 2 years, and was only for the same city. If I drove 1 hour to Dayton, I was good.

The other was for a bank, which was more about not giving trade secrets.

My uncle was an engineer for a large corporation. He started his own business, and they couldn't stop him. They did nothing. They complained, sent letters, whined a lot.. but in the end non-competes are pretty limited.