The risk of income inequality

[bripat9643]

Ok keep paying employees so little that they need to collect welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

Ok just increase wages and prices until no customers shop there anymore, and all the employees are unemployed collecting welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

My solution, cut welfare. Government shrinks. Problem solved.

Ok cut welfare but do nothing to create more jobs. In 2 years a bunch of liberals get elected and welfare is back. You've solved nothing.

Or change the corporate tax code giving incentives for companies to employ here in the US, pay good wages, give good benefits, and offer good retirement. If a company does those things then make it 0. In the example of Walmart I believe that would open up billions for workers.

If you're worried about the politics of the thing then you may as well throw in the towel before you even start. Anyone promising what the libs call "austerity" is never going to beat anyone who is promising free stuff to the vast population of morons.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

One of the many funny things about these lolberals is that when you explore their talking pointless du jour (regardless of which day and which talking pointless we are addressing), THEY USUALLY TEND TO BACK PEDDLE PRETTY DAMN QUICK.

For instance, the current meme is to bleat about "income inequality."

But try to get the goobers to discuss it for a while and they sprint away. What IS "income inequality?" Well, most folks would immediately compare it to its logical antithesis: income equality.

But nooooo.

THAT's not what those schmucks are "talking" about.

Just try to get them to pin their own rhetoric down, however. If the discussion is NOT about income inequality versus income EQUALITY, then what DO they mean when they attempt to yap about income INequality?

Damned if they know -- or will coherently address it.

It means what liberals always mean no matter what they are ostensibly talking about: they want more of you money and more of your freedom.

USUALLY followed by the refrain, if you object, "You are greeeeeeeddddyyyy!!!"

 

[Andylusion]

So you cut social security tax when these big corporations no longer give good retirement benefits? Most people are going to have to use social security as their retirement and I think it's already looking to be low on funds.

I was talking about corporate tax. And if you give incentives for companies to have lower taxes they will take advantage of it. With execs making millions I'm sure they can figure it out.

Well fine, but that's how that works. Customers and employees pay all the tax. Corporations, just between the customers and employees. If you tax away the companies profits, that has to come from somewhere.... either lower wages, or higher prices, or less investment, which means fewer future jobs and wealth.

Either way, the money is coming from us the employees, or us the customers, or both.

All tax, effects either the customer or the employee.

The myth of the left, is that you can increase tax, and have it only effect "the company" as if the company is has this magic pile of cash. Or only effect the share holders, which it won't. Because if the share holders are not paid enough to justify their investment into the company, they'll tear the company apart and get their money back, and once again the employees are unemployed, and the customers end up paying more for products and services.

Walmart will likely hire and employ 100,000 people next year, because of their $13 billion in investment. New stores, and new distribution centers, as well as truck drivers and trucks. Not including the hundreds of construction projects employing workers.

Would they have employed more people if they had more of that profit not taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Would they have employed fewer people if they had even more profit taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Ultimately we pay the tax either way. You are never going to have any system by which the people running the business pay that tax. Every country that has tried that, has had the rich pack up their businesses, and leave. France, Venezuela, Argentina, California.... on and on and on, and those are just modern examples.

France's unemployment rate for people under 25 is over 25%. Are they better off with the wealthy not employing them at all, because they left?

If you increase social security tax, in order to shore up SS, that means lower wages. That's how that works. I'd rather have the money. I'd be much better off myself.

So do you have some answer for how to balance the budget then? I'm still pretty sure my idea would work quite well. Certainly would be an improvement over how things are now.

Cut spending. It's just that simple.

 

[Brain357]

Well fine, but that's how that works. Customers and employees pay all the tax. Corporations, just between the customers and employees. If you tax away the companies profits, that has to come from somewhere.... either lower wages, or higher prices, or less investment, which means fewer future jobs and wealth.

Either way, the money is coming from us the employees, or us the customers, or both.

All tax, effects either the customer or the employee.

The myth of the left, is that you can increase tax, and have it only effect "the company" as if the company is has this magic pile of cash. Or only effect the share holders, which it won't. Because if the share holders are not paid enough to justify their investment into the company, they'll tear the company apart and get their money back, and once again the employees are unemployed, and the customers end up paying more for products and services.

Walmart will likely hire and employ 100,000 people next year, because of their $13 billion in investment. New stores, and new distribution centers, as well as truck drivers and trucks. Not including the hundreds of construction projects employing workers.

Would they have employed more people if they had more of that profit not taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Would they have employed fewer people if they had even more profit taxed away by the government? Very likely.

Ultimately we pay the tax either way. You are never going to have any system by which the people running the business pay that tax. Every country that has tried that, has had the rich pack up their businesses, and leave. France, Venezuela, Argentina, California.... on and on and on, and those are just modern examples.

France's unemployment rate for people under 25 is over 25%. Are they better off with the wealthy not employing them at all, because they left?

If you increase social security tax, in order to shore up SS, that means lower wages. That's how that works. I'd rather have the money. I'd be much better off myself.

So do you have some answer for how to balance the budget then? I'm still pretty sure my idea would work quite well. Certainly would be an improvement over how things are now.

Cut spending. It's just that simple.

Won't work. Cut welfare while everyone sees the rich getting richer? That will bring out the liberal vote. We are much more likely to get increased taxes. Not what I want, but far more likely to happen.

 

[Andylusion]

Ok keep paying employees so little that they need to collect welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

Ok just increase wages and prices until no customers shop there anymore, and all the employees are unemployed collecting welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

My solution, cut welfare. Government shrinks. Problem solved.

Ok cut welfare but do nothing to create more jobs. In 2 years a bunch of liberals get elected and welfare is back. You've solved nothing.

Or change the corporate tax code giving incentives for companies to employ here in the US, pay good wages, give good benefits, and offer good retirement. If a company does those things then make it 0. In the example of Walmart I believe that would open up billions for workers.

In 1990s, we cut welfare and did nothing to create more jobs.

As for electing a bunch of liberals and getting welfare back, that will happen even under your plan. You solved nothing.

There will never be a point at which people earn so much they don't want welfare. When I worked at Wendy's, a lady there told us straight up that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again. She quit on the day she qualified.

Nothing you do is going to fix that, except simply ending welfare.

Even at the job I'm at right now, there was a lady there who walked around asking if anyone wanted to buy her EBT card. She was working there earning the same amount I was, yet collecting food assistance. And obviously she wasn't really tight on food, because she was willing to sell a $150 card for $50.

Nothing you do is going to fix that, except simply ending EBT.

And again, there is no amount of tax incentive you can provide that is going to make employees earn enough to get off welfare. It simply isn't going to happen.

 

[Andylusion]

So do you have some answer for how to balance the budget then? I'm still pretty sure my idea would work quite well. Certainly would be an improvement over how things are now.

Cut spending. It's just that simple.

Won't work. Cut welfare while everyone sees the rich getting richer? That will bring out the liberal vote. We are much more likely to get increased taxes. Not what I want, but far more likely to happen.

The rich got richer in the 1990s too. Cutting welfare worked then, and it will work today.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I favor rising tides.

 

[Brain357]

Ok just increase wages and prices until no customers shop there anymore, and all the employees are unemployed collecting welfare. Government continues to grow. Your really offering very little to this conversation by repeating yourself.

My solution, cut welfare. Government shrinks. Problem solved.

Ok cut welfare but do nothing to create more jobs. In 2 years a bunch of liberals get elected and welfare is back. You've solved nothing.

Or change the corporate tax code giving incentives for companies to employ here in the US, pay good wages, give good benefits, and offer good retirement. If a company does those things then make it 0. In the example of Walmart I believe that would open up billions for workers.

In 1990s, we cut welfare and did nothing to create more jobs.

As for electing a bunch of liberals and getting welfare back, that will happen even under your plan. You solved nothing.

There will never be a point at which people earn so much they don't want welfare. When I worked at Wendy's, a lady there told us straight up that she intended to only work long enough to qualify for welfare again. She quit on the day she qualified.

Nothing you do is going to fix that, except simply ending welfare.

Even at the job I'm at right now, there was a lady there who walked around asking if anyone wanted to buy her EBT card. She was working there earning the same amount I was, yet collecting food assistance. And obviously she wasn't really tight on food, because she was willing to sell a $150 card for $50.

Nothing you do is going to fix that, except simply ending EBT.

And again, there is no amount of tax incentive you can provide that is going to make employees earn enough to get off welfare. It simply isn't going to happen.

Well we have to disagree then. Like I already told you in the 90's we had a strong economy and low unemployment. CEO's also weren't making 300x the average worker. If this was the 90's I'd be with you, but it's not.

Now we have the rich making insane amounts of money while they pay workers so little they are collecting welfare. Just can't do it now.

Several left leaning people on here have been on board with my idea. It should be a win for everyone. Give corporations lower taxes. People get better wages and benefits. More people get off welfare and we get a balanced budget.

One other thing that I think we need to do that liberals will probably disagree with me on is close the border. A constant stream of low paid workers is driving down pay for everyone.

 

[Brain357]

Cut spending. It's just that simple.

Won't work. Cut welfare while everyone sees the rich getting richer? That will bring out the liberal vote. We are much more likely to get increased taxes. Not what I want, but far more likely to happen.

The rich got richer in the 1990s too. Cutting welfare worked then, and it will work today.

Then there were lots of jobs. Cut welfare and people could go out and get a job. Cut it now and there still aren't any jobs. And many of the ones out there are paying so poorly that people collect welfare even with a job. You cut welfare and next election it will be back up with nice tax increases for the rich or probably all of us.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

 

[rightwinger]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

 

[Geaux4it]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

 

[rightwinger]

I favor rising tides.

It used to be a rising tide lifts all boats

Now, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

 

[ScienceRocks]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

Yes, it is my ******* business what they're paying dollar per dollar much less taxes then I. You don't grow economy limiting the wealthy to a few greedy *****.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I favor rising tides.

It used to be a rising tide lifts all boats

Now, a rising tide only lifts the yachts

That was the plan of the "SMALLER" government conservatives all along to rip down science, infrastructure and investment in America. Started with Nixon selling America's manufacturing to china and then Bush sr with Nafta!

 

[rightwinger]

I OPPOSE income equality. All rational people do -- or should.

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

Yes, it is my business when my government continues policies that help only the wealthy and do not deliver the jobs and prosperity to working Americans that was promised

 

[Geaux4it]

Who ever asked for equality?

But when the highest earners make 200 times what the average earner makes it is time to ask...why do we continue policies that help the highest earners?

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

Yes, it is my business when my government continues policies that help only the wealthy and do not deliver the jobs and prosperity to working Americans that was promised

But it's not the government job to create jobs. That's what business do if allowed by government overreach

-Geaux

 

[ScienceRocks]

Just say no to the neo-Robar barons!!!!

Fight for the middle class! Fight for American first policies! Fight for regulations and fight! Fight to defeat these crooks!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Because it's none of your business how much they make is why. Worry about your own position and sack up accept your reality.

Believe it or not- you control it

-Geaux

Yes, it is my business when my government continues policies that help only the wealthy and do not deliver the jobs and prosperity to working Americans that was promised

But it's not the government job to create jobs. That's what business do.

-Geaux

Really?

Did you know that our economy has a public and private sector? Did you know that the government pave the roads, build the bridges and keep us up to date on the latest weather! Between the two of us,,,I love the private sector but it isn't everything.

Opinions are like assholes and I have one!

 

[Geaux4it]

Just say no to the nea-Robar barons!!!!

Fight for the middle class! Fight for American first policies! Fight for regulations and fight! Fight to defeat these crooks!

I assume this includes infrastructure?

-Geaux