The risk of income inequality

[Brain357]

Yes, you clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what those words mean, you just repeat them because some left wing blogger told you to.

I had no idea Ron Paul was a liberal.

Then you haven't been paying much attention. Ron Paul does a better job standing up for real liberal values than any Democrats.

I've never heard him say we need bigger government.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

But you are not in support of smaller government. If you force up wages, companies will close, and people will lose their jobs. Greece is a perfect example of this.

Now all those people are 100% on welfare, because there are no jobs.

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

isn't it time for government to stop overregulating business.....even if you think the goals are good ones....?

 

[Brain357]

But you are not in support of smaller government. If you force up wages, companies will close, and people will lose their jobs. Greece is a perfect example of this.

Now all those people are 100% on welfare, because there are no jobs.

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

isn't it time for government to stop overregulating business.....even if you think the goals are good ones....?

Well the corporations could choose to pay taxes rather than provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. It wouldn't be forced.

If companies don't provide these things then the government will continue to grow. We vote in this country so you can't just cut welfare and pretend that's going to fix everything. When companies don't provide it, the government will. I prefer that companies provide it.

 

[Andylusion]

I'm an independent. I want smaller government. The real question is what has happened to conservatives that they support this?

But you are not in support of smaller government. If you force up wages, companies will close, and people will lose their jobs. Greece is a perfect example of this.

Now all those people are 100% on welfare, because there are no jobs.

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

Nothing, because "you seem" doesn't mean anything other than you have an opinion. Your opinion is wrong. That makes you... wrong.

Giving a tax incentive doesn't do anything.

The vary act of giving the wage increase itself will lower your taxes, because that would lower your profits. If profits decreased by $5 Billion, your taxes would lower by $1.75 Billion.

But at the exact same time, lowering corporate tax, by increasing wages, would increase other taxes. For example, increasing wages by $5 Billion, would also create $400 Million in Social Security tax alone. Not to mention medicare, and unemployment comp, and other things.

But the problem is, you don't know what the taxes will be until you get to the end of the year. If you increase wages, to get a tax incentive, and then you don't end up with very much taxes because profits were low that year, you ended up saving nothing while possibly driving your business into financial trouble.

And don't think Walmart can't disappear. Enron was flying higher than a kite in the 90s, and in a mere 5 year time span, was gone.

You want to help employees earn more? Just flat out cut taxes. The more profits Walmart is able to keep, without any danger of being taxed away, the more likely they are to give pay raises.

And one final thing.... I said this before, and for some reason no one grasps this.

Every store is operated like an independent business. Just because Walmart Corporate gets a tax incentive, doesn't mean your individual store does. If your store doesn't have the money to give people a huge wage hike, it doesn't matter what incentives you give to Walmart Corporate.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

isn't it time for government to stop overregulating business.....even if you think the goals are good ones....?

Well the corporations could choose to pay taxes rather than provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. It wouldn't be forced.

If companies don't provide these things then the government will continue to grow. We vote in this country so you can't just cut welfare and pretend that's going to fix everything. When companies don't provide it, the government will. I prefer that companies provide it.

don't you realize that the end consumer is the one who always pays.....? any product or service contains corporate taxes in the prices....

we need to cut taxes and regulations to the bone.....this will free up business and downsize government.....two goals that will free up Americans to become all that they can be....

 

[Andylusion]

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

isn't it time for government to stop overregulating business.....even if you think the goals are good ones....?

Well the corporations could choose to pay taxes rather than provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. It wouldn't be forced.

If companies don't provide these things then the government will continue to grow. We vote in this country so you can't just cut welfare and pretend that's going to fix everything. When companies don't provide it, the government will. I prefer that companies provide it.

Again, you don't seem to be grasping that it's the customers that determine what the company can provide. If the customers are not going to pay more money for products, then the company can't provide more wages to employees. Walmart's profit margin is only 3%. 3 pennies for each dollar of goods sold.

If they raise prices to pay more wages, customers will go somewhere else to shop.

Second, again, as long as government offers money, people will take it. You want to reduce the size of government, just reduce it.

As long as you want government to continue giving out tax payers money.... you support big government. What corporations do is irrelevant.

 

[Brain357]

isn't it time for government to stop overregulating business.....even if you think the goals are good ones....?

Well the corporations could choose to pay taxes rather than provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. It wouldn't be forced.

If companies don't provide these things then the government will continue to grow. We vote in this country so you can't just cut welfare and pretend that's going to fix everything. When companies don't provide it, the government will. I prefer that companies provide it.

don't you realize that the end consumer is the one who always pays.....? any product or service contains corporate taxes in the prices....

we need to cut taxes and regulations to the bone.....this will free up business and downsize government.....two goals that will free up Americans to become all that they can be....

That's why I say it can go to 0 for all I care. But I don't think employees of the largest companies in the country should be paid so little they collect welfare. Meanwhile CEO pay has gone from 20X the average worker to over 300X the average worker. As long as companies pay so little the government will grow.

 

[Andylusion]

I really don't care about Republicans or Democrats. I'm talking about balancing the budget and decreasing the size of government. How are we going to do that when corporations are paying so little that the employees have to collect welfare?

From the link:
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.

Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.

They don't. The reason people are collecting welfare, is because we have made it easy to collect welfare.

I made $12K in 2012. I survived and collected zero welfare.

The fact that people are working for walmart and collecting welfare, doesn't mean it's walmarts fault. It means it's too easy to get welfare.

The way to shrink the size and scope of government is to simply flat out, cut the size and scope of government.

When welfare reform hit in the 1990s, wages didn't go up.... they simply cut welfare. People started to work more. It's that easy.

If you think that somehow you are going to push companies to pay enough that people don't take welfare anymore, you are crazy. As long as people are able to take welfare, they are going to take it, no matter how much they have or make.

Class welfare: Unemployed millionaires on the public dole | New York Post
Millionaires collecting government money. Why not? It's there, and they have a legal right to it..... right?

Lottery millionaire charged with welfare fraud | The Columbus Dispatch

Millionaire lottery winner, collecting welfare. Why not? It's there, and I have a legal right to it..... right?

And the truth is, if you offer to pay me money right now, I'll take your cash. Does that mean I need it? Not really, but I'll sure take it, if you change the guild lines so that I qualify.

You want to cut government assistance? Cut government assistants. That's how you do that.

Did you pay taxes in 2012? You must live with your parents?

Last I checked you have to be pretty poor to collect food stamps.

So you cut back on welfare, what do you think happens next election? That might have worked when we had 5% unemployment, but that's not the case now.

So now, you care more about the election, than cutting the size of government?

We did cut welfare back in the 90s. Nothing happened, except people go to work.

In the state of Ohio, you can collect food stamps if you earn less than $1,667 a month. That's $10.40 an hour. I just looked it up.

 

[Londoner]

During the postwar years we decided to channel more of the wealth created by the worker to the actual worker, as opposed to what we are doing now, which is to channel it to investors. As a result we have huge population of deeply impoverished workers; these people barely have enough money to survive. It's called the 3rd world and it was Reagan's dream

(You get this, right? The cheapest possible operating costs for investors is the 3rd world. Nike investors make more when their sneaks are made by workers who earn less than $5/day. This was the primary objective of the Reagan Revolution: to lower the cost of production so as to incentivize investment. Welcome to it)

 

[Brain357]

But you are not in support of smaller government. If you force up wages, companies will close, and people will lose their jobs. Greece is a perfect example of this.

Now all those people are 100% on welfare, because there are no jobs.

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

Nothing, because "you seem" doesn't mean anything other than you have an opinion. Your opinion is wrong. That makes you... wrong.

Giving a tax incentive doesn't do anything.

The vary act of giving the wage increase itself will lower your taxes, because that would lower your profits. If profits decreased by $5 Billion, your taxes would lower by $1.75 Billion.

But at the exact same time, lowering corporate tax, by increasing wages, would increase other taxes. For example, increasing wages by $5 Billion, would also create $400 Million in Social Security tax alone. Not to mention medicare, and unemployment comp, and other things.

But the problem is, you don't know what the taxes will be until you get to the end of the year. If you increase wages, to get a tax incentive, and then you don't end up with very much taxes because profits were low that year, you ended up saving nothing while possibly driving your business into financial trouble.

And don't think Walmart can't disappear. Enron was flying higher than a kite in the 90s, and in a mere 5 year time span, was gone.

You want to help employees earn more? Just flat out cut taxes. The more profits Walmart is able to keep, without any danger of being taxed away, the more likely they are to give pay raises.

And one final thing.... I said this before, and for some reason no one grasps this.

Every store is operated like an independent business. Just because Walmart Corporate gets a tax incentive, doesn't mean your individual store does. If your store doesn't have the money to give people a huge wage hike, it doesn't matter what incentives you give to Walmart Corporate.

Sure Walmart can disappear. It's costing the government almost a million dollars for just one store in WI. That's a lot of corporate welfare. Meanwhile the execs are making millions and the Waltons are billionaires. Great situation if you love big government.

So you say let the government keep growing and let the rich get richer. I see.

 

[Andylusion]

Well the corporations could choose to pay taxes rather than provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. It wouldn't be forced.

If companies don't provide these things then the government will continue to grow. We vote in this country so you can't just cut welfare and pretend that's going to fix everything. When companies don't provide it, the government will. I prefer that companies provide it.

don't you realize that the end consumer is the one who always pays.....? any product or service contains corporate taxes in the prices....

we need to cut taxes and regulations to the bone.....this will free up business and downsize government.....two goals that will free up Americans to become all that they can be....

That's why I say it can go to 0 for all I care. But I don't think employees of the largest companies in the country should be paid so little they collect welfare. Meanwhile CEO pay has gone from 20X the average worker to over 300X the average worker. As long as companies pay so little the government will grow.

Again, would you rather they be paid ZERO? Every time you drive up the cost of labor, people lose their jobs. Always. So would those people at Walmart be better off earning zero?

Doesn't matter what the CEO pay does. Even if you collected all the executive pay, and doled it out to all the employees, it would end up pennies.

CEO pay is not the problem. If you confiscated the entire compensation package of Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than 1/2 of a penny per hour. That's not the problem dude.

The only reason anyone should care what the CEO makes, is if they are greedy and envious people. It doesn't matter otherwise, and it won't help people on welfare.

 

[natstew]

The big myth about income inequality that just won't die - The Week

Modern life is fraught with very expensive risks lurking around every corner. A sudden illness or accident could render you disabled and unable to work. A recession or economic restructuring could render you unemployed and render the skills you've spent your life learning useless. Reaching old age with inadequate savings could mean living your golden years in poverty.

Many societies have created robust social insurance systems to protect their populations from these kinds of risks. The U.S. has done so as well, but to a much lesser extent. Because social insurance in the U.S. is so inadequate, it is incumbent upon people to self-insure against these risks. That means they need to have enough wealth to draw upon as a cushion if they end up facing hard times. But here's where the social contract fails: When the bottom half of the country owns basically none of the country's wealth, they can't self-insure themselves against these risks. Instead, they must lead a relatively perilous life in which one misstep or mistake could wreck them and their families.

More dishonesty from RW.
Whyn are you afraid to tell the truth? Western Europe is about to collapse due to the cost of their "economic insurance".

 

[Brain357]

They don't. The reason people are collecting welfare, is because we have made it easy to collect welfare.

I made $12K in 2012. I survived and collected zero welfare.

The fact that people are working for walmart and collecting welfare, doesn't mean it's walmarts fault. It means it's too easy to get welfare.

The way to shrink the size and scope of government is to simply flat out, cut the size and scope of government.

When welfare reform hit in the 1990s, wages didn't go up.... they simply cut welfare. People started to work more. It's that easy.

If you think that somehow you are going to push companies to pay enough that people don't take welfare anymore, you are crazy. As long as people are able to take welfare, they are going to take it, no matter how much they have or make.

Class welfare: Unemployed millionaires on the public dole | New York Post
Millionaires collecting government money. Why not? It's there, and they have a legal right to it..... right?

Lottery millionaire charged with welfare fraud | The Columbus Dispatch

Millionaire lottery winner, collecting welfare. Why not? It's there, and I have a legal right to it..... right?

And the truth is, if you offer to pay me money right now, I'll take your cash. Does that mean I need it? Not really, but I'll sure take it, if you change the guild lines so that I qualify.

You want to cut government assistance? Cut government assistants. That's how you do that.

Did you pay taxes in 2012? You must live with your parents?

Last I checked you have to be pretty poor to collect food stamps.

So you cut back on welfare, what do you think happens next election? That might have worked when we had 5% unemployment, but that's not the case now.

So now, you care more about the election, than cutting the size of government?

We did cut welfare back in the 90s. Nothing happened, except people go to work.

In the state of Ohio, you can collect food stamps if you earn less than $1,667 a month. That's $10.40 an hour. I just looked it up.

No I care about something that will actually work. Cutting welfare just for it to be raised back up 2 years later doesn't fix anything. In the 90's we had a strong economy and low unemployment. Now we have a stagnant economy and high unemployment. It won't work now.

Not sure of the cost of living in Ohio, but that is only $20,000 a year. That's poor.

 

[Andylusion]

During the postwar years we decided to channel more of the wealth created by the worker to the actual worker, as opposed to what we are doing now, which is to channel it to investors. As a result we have huge population of deeply impoverished workers; these people barely have enough money to survive. It's called the 3rd world and it was Reagan's dream

Well you are wrong. Sorry. I just gave the math for this. If you take all the 'investor pay' of walmart, and gave it to the employees, it wouldn't change their pay that much. A dollar an hour at most. At the very most.

Further, you don't seem to grasp that without those investors, those employees wouldn't have jobs.

So you are saying that if we had no money channeled to investors, and the people were earning ZERO, because they were unemployed.....

That's better in your world? Really?

 

[Andylusion]

I think we should give tax incentives for companies to provide good wages, benefits, and retirement. I would even bring it to 0 if they did that. As people make more and get off welfare the government would shrink. How is that for increased government?

You seem to support corporate welfare which is increasing the size of government. What does that make you?

Nothing, because "you seem" doesn't mean anything other than you have an opinion. Your opinion is wrong. That makes you... wrong.

Giving a tax incentive doesn't do anything.

The vary act of giving the wage increase itself will lower your taxes, because that would lower your profits. If profits decreased by $5 Billion, your taxes would lower by $1.75 Billion.

But at the exact same time, lowering corporate tax, by increasing wages, would increase other taxes. For example, increasing wages by $5 Billion, would also create $400 Million in Social Security tax alone. Not to mention medicare, and unemployment comp, and other things.

But the problem is, you don't know what the taxes will be until you get to the end of the year. If you increase wages, to get a tax incentive, and then you don't end up with very much taxes because profits were low that year, you ended up saving nothing while possibly driving your business into financial trouble.

And don't think Walmart can't disappear. Enron was flying higher than a kite in the 90s, and in a mere 5 year time span, was gone.

You want to help employees earn more? Just flat out cut taxes. The more profits Walmart is able to keep, without any danger of being taxed away, the more likely they are to give pay raises.

And one final thing.... I said this before, and for some reason no one grasps this.

Every store is operated like an independent business. Just because Walmart Corporate gets a tax incentive, doesn't mean your individual store does. If your store doesn't have the money to give people a huge wage hike, it doesn't matter what incentives you give to Walmart Corporate.

Sure Walmart can disappear. It's costing the government almost a million dollars for just one store in WI. That's a lot of corporate welfare. Meanwhile the execs are making millions and the Waltons are billionaires. Great situation if you love big government.

So you say let the government keep growing and let the rich get richer. I see.

So you are a complete idiot, that makes himself look stupid, by being an asshole on the forum. I see.

Either talk on here like an adult, or get off the forum idiot. I'm tired with you being a pathetic jerk.

 

[Brain357]

don't you realize that the end consumer is the one who always pays.....? any product or service contains corporate taxes in the prices....

we need to cut taxes and regulations to the bone.....this will free up business and downsize government.....two goals that will free up Americans to become all that they can be....

That's why I say it can go to 0 for all I care. But I don't think employees of the largest companies in the country should be paid so little they collect welfare. Meanwhile CEO pay has gone from 20X the average worker to over 300X the average worker. As long as companies pay so little the government will grow.

Again, would you rather they be paid ZERO? Every time you drive up the cost of labor, people lose their jobs. Always. So would those people at Walmart be better off earning zero?

Doesn't matter what the CEO pay does. Even if you collected all the executive pay, and doled it out to all the employees, it would end up pennies.

CEO pay is not the problem. If you confiscated the entire compensation package of Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than 1/2 of a penny per hour. That's not the problem dude.

The only reason anyone should care what the CEO makes, is if they are greedy and envious people. It doesn't matter otherwise, and it won't help people on welfare.

The employees are already collecting welfare so what does it matter?

Oh it's not? Full executive pay was $62 million like I stated. That's a lot of money for guys paying employees so poorly. Now add in all the VP's and directors. Then add in the Waltons. I think it's would add up to enough to be something.

 

[Andylusion]

Did you pay taxes in 2012? You must live with your parents?

Last I checked you have to be pretty poor to collect food stamps.

So you cut back on welfare, what do you think happens next election? That might have worked when we had 5% unemployment, but that's not the case now.

So now, you care more about the election, than cutting the size of government?

We did cut welfare back in the 90s. Nothing happened, except people go to work.

In the state of Ohio, you can collect food stamps if you earn less than $1,667 a month. That's $10.40 an hour. I just looked it up.

No I care about something that will actually work. Cutting welfare just for it to be raised back up 2 years later doesn't fix anything. In the 90's we had a strong economy and low unemployment. Now we have a stagnant economy and high unemployment. It won't work now.

Not sure of the cost of living in Ohio, but that is only $20,000 a year. That's poor.

But it won't work. What you are proposing won't work. Every time you force up wages, people lose their jobs. How much welfare will they collect when they are earning zero?

Yes, we have a stagnant economy with high unemployment.

What was the last economic policy we put in place, before this happened?

2009, minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Hello..... minimum wage kills jobs.

 

[Brain357]

Nothing, because "you seem" doesn't mean anything other than you have an opinion. Your opinion is wrong. That makes you... wrong.

Giving a tax incentive doesn't do anything.

The vary act of giving the wage increase itself will lower your taxes, because that would lower your profits. If profits decreased by $5 Billion, your taxes would lower by $1.75 Billion.

But at the exact same time, lowering corporate tax, by increasing wages, would increase other taxes. For example, increasing wages by $5 Billion, would also create $400 Million in Social Security tax alone. Not to mention medicare, and unemployment comp, and other things.

But the problem is, you don't know what the taxes will be until you get to the end of the year. If you increase wages, to get a tax incentive, and then you don't end up with very much taxes because profits were low that year, you ended up saving nothing while possibly driving your business into financial trouble.

And don't think Walmart can't disappear. Enron was flying higher than a kite in the 90s, and in a mere 5 year time span, was gone.

You want to help employees earn more? Just flat out cut taxes. The more profits Walmart is able to keep, without any danger of being taxed away, the more likely they are to give pay raises.

And one final thing.... I said this before, and for some reason no one grasps this.

Every store is operated like an independent business. Just because Walmart Corporate gets a tax incentive, doesn't mean your individual store does. If your store doesn't have the money to give people a huge wage hike, it doesn't matter what incentives you give to Walmart Corporate.

Sure Walmart can disappear. It's costing the government almost a million dollars for just one store in WI. That's a lot of corporate welfare. Meanwhile the execs are making millions and the Waltons are billionaires. Great situation if you love big government.

So you say let the government keep growing and let the rich get richer. I see.

So you are a complete idiot, that makes himself look stupid, by being an asshole on the forum. I see.

Either talk on here like an adult, or get off the forum idiot. I'm tired with you being a pathetic jerk.

I should talk like an adult? Your the one with the name calling and swearing. Sorry you don't like the truth.

 

[Andylusion]

That's why I say it can go to 0 for all I care. But I don't think employees of the largest companies in the country should be paid so little they collect welfare. Meanwhile CEO pay has gone from 20X the average worker to over 300X the average worker. As long as companies pay so little the government will grow.

Again, would you rather they be paid ZERO? Every time you drive up the cost of labor, people lose their jobs. Always. So would those people at Walmart be better off earning zero?

Doesn't matter what the CEO pay does. Even if you collected all the executive pay, and doled it out to all the employees, it would end up pennies.

CEO pay is not the problem. If you confiscated the entire compensation package of Mike Duke, CEO of Walmart, and gave it to the employees, it would be less than 1/2 of a penny per hour. That's not the problem dude.

The only reason anyone should care what the CEO makes, is if they are greedy and envious people. It doesn't matter otherwise, and it won't help people on welfare.

The employees are already collecting welfare so what does it matter?

Oh it's not? Full executive pay was $62 million like I stated. That's a lot of money for guys paying employees so poorly. Now add in all the VP's and directors. Then add in the Waltons. I think it's would add up to enough to be something.

Again, $62 Million divided by 2.2 million employees, is $28.18 per employee per year. That's going to fix welfare? 54¢ a week is going to get people off food stamps? 1¢ per hour raise, is going to shrink the welfare roles, and reduce government in your book?

No it's not. CEO pay... executive pay.... whatever.... that's not the problem. You are not going to solve the problem you are outlining by this method.

 

[Brain357]

So now, you care more about the election, than cutting the size of government?

We did cut welfare back in the 90s. Nothing happened, except people go to work.

In the state of Ohio, you can collect food stamps if you earn less than $1,667 a month. That's $10.40 an hour. I just looked it up.

No I care about something that will actually work. Cutting welfare just for it to be raised back up 2 years later doesn't fix anything. In the 90's we had a strong economy and low unemployment. Now we have a stagnant economy and high unemployment. It won't work now.

Not sure of the cost of living in Ohio, but that is only $20,000 a year. That's poor.

But it won't work. What you are proposing won't work. Every time you force up wages, people lose their jobs. How much welfare will they collect when they are earning zero?

Yes, we have a stagnant economy with high unemployment.

What was the last economic policy we put in place, before this happened?

2009, minimum wage went up to $7.25 an hour.

Hello..... minimum wage kills jobs.

Why won't it work? I'm always hearing how we need to lower corporate taxes. I would offer 0.

I'm not proposing minimum wage. That is forcing companies to pay more. I would give them the opportunity to pay 0 corporate taxes in return for better wages. Quite the difference.