What's with the animosity towards the wealthy?

This is the simple version: No two person's 'needs' are the same. However, multiple people are able to provide the time/labor to fulfill the employers 'need'.

So if a person 'needed' to pay debts, and therefore felt he deserved renumeration of 3X, and someone whose 'needs' were only 2X, who do you think the employer would engage?

If the position the employer is seeking to fulfil can be fulfilled by 200 people, since they have the same 'needs' as someone who is able to fulfil a highly skilled position, should they be paid the same?

The value of an employee is what they make themselves worth, it's not based on what an employee THINKS they 'need'.

 

It is irrelevant that no two person's needs are the same. You seem to misunderstand my argument. An employer needs labor, and employee needs wages. There. That's the need I speak of. The employer cannot and should not simply expect that only his need to maximize profits and pay his bills must be respected when negotiating pay and benefits. That only the employees' side must compromise.

The value of an employee is determined by his past places of employment, work experience and educational levels. Never said it rested solely with the employee. If an employee, or union on his behalf, argues that he should be paid 10% more than the employer does now, citing past experience, education levels, etc. that's what the employer ought to pay. Not because government says he must, but because it shows trust from one party of a transaction (buyer/employer) to the other (seller/employee). Naturally, the employee and/or the unions that represent him, also must/should compromise and recognize and respect the company owner's right to maximize his profits.

Capitalism needs not be a cynical, everyone vs. everyone, economic system.

 

It has everything to do with your statement "Why should the rich pay more" as a percentage of the Total.

In the 50s/60's the corporation/worker split was roughly 50/50. Today - the split is roughly 80/20. - so your inference that the worker pays "Zero" is simply false. They may not pay one tax for roads but someone else pays another. The worker pays 80%.

"on a relative basis Are you kidding ???" - it is difficult to respond to this comment while being kind. How is any comparison to be made - other than on a relative basis ? - I am not math challenged - throwing out a number of 2 Billion - means nothing unless it is compared to something - 2 Billion relative to what ? What was the total paid by the citizens - and what is the utilization of the citizens relative to Mcdonalds ?

How much is spent on Roads in this nation on an annual basis ? - Police - infrastructure - and all the other things that 2 Billion contributes towards. Answer ? using a 2017 stat - 4.2 Trillion.

Given McDonalds has a store within a few blocks of most everyone - that is some serious utilization of roads- police -infrastructure - justice system and everything else that is provided.

Then you claim "McD's" is paying 33% rate. The idea that McDs is not an international corporation that uses every tax loophole in the book - is absurd - BUT - even if true - this is irrelevant to what McD's share of the pot should be.

 

Statistics might offer some insight. For 2017:

• The top 1% (1400 filers) earned 21% of all income and paid 38% of all taxes at an average rate of 27%
• The bottom 50% (70,400 filers) earned 11% of all income and paid 3% of all taxes at an average rate of 4%
• The bottom 50% numbers are a little misleading because it is estimated that the bottom 25% to 30% pay no net taxes. Many in the lower brackets are not counted as those not paying any taxes because most do not even file a return.

What other kinds of taxes should be looked at other than income taxes? The wealthy pay far more property taxes than the less wealthy; half of the people pay no property taxes at all. Are you thinking sales tax rates should be graduated, or that maybe the wealthy should be forced to buy more stuff???

 

Both. Maybe an excise tax on luxury goods

 

Um... maybe it is you who needs a lesson or two. Its not underpayment if the paid wage is at the rate the market determines. That is called equilibrium, it happens naturally.

 

As I thought, you don't know your supply and demand! Any wage making power and underpayment is delivered. Why don't you know that? Its Econ 101

 

If you include just the top 10% of wage earners. People making around $118K and above pay 87% of the tax load.

 

Because its simply not true.

 

Its like discussing 2 plus 2 equals 4 to someone without any fingers. I'm just referring to basic supply and demand. If a firm has any wage making power we know the average cost and marginal cost of labour no longer correspond. That means profit maximisation will ensure a wage below the marginal revenue productivity of labour. Don't you know your equilibrium?

 

"Look son over there, we call that a democrat politician, the one accepting that bag of cash, now I am 63 and still have never heard one tell the truth but you are only 25 so perhaps by the time you are 63 maybe, just maybe their is a chance that one day you will hear one tell the truth, but I suspect it may be more of something your grandchildren may look forward to"

 

From my perspective its like discussing econ with a freshman business student that has never owned or run anything in their life. Wage making power? Seriously? Which professor thought anyone uses language like that when making employment decisions. A job is only worth x dollars of compensation to person A vs what person B is willing to take in payment for said job. I'm providing employment FOR MY BENEFIT to MAKE PROFITS. It is true that I compete with other companies for employees, but certain jobs are only worth so much and of course the goal is to always pay less if you can. I'm loving all the econ book terms though... marginal revenue productivity of labour? Ha ha ha Its great. I havent looked at any of that stuff in 25 years as it has no practical application in the real world.

 

Your bobbing and weaving is making me dizzy. 50/50 or 80/20 split of what? What corporations earned compared to what they paid workers. What corporation paid in taxes compared to what their workers paid in taxes? You know (I would assume) that corporations pay some workers enormous salaries; what side of your ledger does this go on? This thread is about the wealthy; how did corporations get in it???

Surely you jest. The $2B paid in taxes is relative to $6B net income! Pointing out that their tax bill is 33% of their income (actually 25% by accounting standards). Anybody individual you know that can match that?

another non sequitur. Whatever you want to spend your $4.2 trillion on, most of it by far is coming from the wealthy and your new partner the corporation. How much is coming from the 70,000 filer in the bottom 50% that paid 3% of all income taxes? How much do you suppose comes from the magnitudes greater property taxes the wealthy and the corporations pay than your average homeowner? How often do you suppose police are called to a house versus to a McDonalds?

Can you name any individual or business that does not take every tax advantage available to them, not counting those to stupid to know, of course?

Cite one, just one, actual loophole that you know McDonalds uses.

Can you tell me then what McD's share of the pot should be? I'll bet all you got here is the standard nonsensical meme, "MORE."

 

Wrong again. I'm self employed with my own business. I'm just not right wing. It means I can understand economics

Yep. Any labour supply elasticity will mean wage making power. Bit obvious really. Basic supply and demand.

Ramble ramble ramble! We're actually in agreement here mind you. Right wingers don't understand supply and demand. They just chant it, like a kid chanting a four letter word

 

it pretty much is summed up to the expression "you hate me cause you ain't me"
Do I envy the rich? of course, but i'm not mad at them. Nobody put a gun to my head and said "don't buy stock in google, don't buy stock in apple, don't flip houses for profit".
I could have been more ambitious in the past. and as far as the silverspoon babies, who cares? Isn't that one of the true American dreams? to have your kids have more than you had?
Also for those rich people haters out there, someone did some equation once that pretty much shows that if the billionaires all split up all their money with all americans, they'd each end up with like 1 dollar and 55 cents or something ridiculous like that.

 

Of course not. Folk are pacified to accept the theft. Its the greatest trick.

 

Maybe... but certainly even you understand that you can not pay a higher rate than the market demands for a job and expect to stay in business without passing the cost on to the consumer, which will ultimately have undesirable effects - or are you indeed arguing for something you know is untenable simply because of your liberal ideology? What would be the point in that? I mean seriously, Joe Customer is not going to pay me a premium for something they can get somewhere else because I pay Joe Employee more than my competition does. Everyone knows this.

 

We can be more accurate here. Definitely. For example, you pretended righteousness by referring to equilibrium. When I actually informed you of the nature of that equilibrium, you backtracked. An oops moment.

Also wrong. Once there is wage making power there is no market wage. There is a wage distribution. Unless the employer is cretinous (or darn lovely), there is just various levels of underpayment. Supply and demand!

PS I'm not a liberal. Please don't cheapen me with American consensus politics.

 

What about the billionaires that also speak out about the extreme wealth inequality? They are also immediately shut down. Is theirs “envy, greed, and lies”? Let me guess, they should just donate their wealth and **** — then we go back to ignoring the issue.

 

Dont flatter yourself. You informed me of what you think of equilibrium is. In order to make you appear less stupid I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I still don't think you really get it, but you are doing your best to be argumentative as to your point (although I'm not sure you have one other than general argument)

Again, you're just arguing in circles. The assertion that "Once there is wage making power there is no market wage" is a moot point.

Well you certainly sound and act like a typical America liberal who wants to argue semantics to prove they are right about something yet completely fail to grasp the big picture.

 

Why are you being such a dork ? "Bobbing and weaving" you are the one bobbing and weaving - so quit projecting your issues onto others. Give me a break already.

split of the tax revenue going into the federal Coffers. as 80/20 - meaning the "worker" contribution into Federal coffers - paid 4 times what the corporations paid.

If you do not understand basic math - terms like "tax revenue" - fine - but what I do is give you the numbers - and state specifically what I am talking about - don't confuse your lack of understanding with bobbing and weaving on my part.

Your living in a fairy tale - one where corporations are paying more in taxes than the worker - a fairy tale that does not reflect reality.

And so you say silly things like "McD's" paid 2 Billion dollars - no context - no reference for comparison.

I then did your work for you - and put that 2 Billion in to perspective ... 4.2 Trillion in spending for 2017 ...

You then warped out into space completely avoid addressing your initial claim - and are talking unintelligible gibberish ..

You post a question (one I have already answered) - but you do not answer the question.

You then state a fact - "some workers get paid big salaries" True - but what does this have to do with paying fair share of the taxes ? are we in never never land yet ?

You then - ask how corporations are involved in a thread about the Wealthy ? - do you seriously not know the answer to this question ... - but again - completely unrelated to paying fair share of taxes - and your original claim.

We have arrived Captain - the Planet - "Get a Argument" - this is where you get off.

 

No, I gave the exact definition after you pretended knowledge.

You should have apologised for pretending knowledge. Once you pretended with 'equilibrium' you were so so open for attack. I held back. But heck, I'm sure you will apologise eventually

You're backtracking already? You said "you can not pay a higher rate than the market demands for a job". There is no market demand. To suggest otherwise is to suggest a market wage. Bit obvious really.

This is a shame. You make an error and then you try and blame me for it. Seems to be a habit?

 

The only habit I appear to have indulged is arguing with someone with no common sense who has an appetite for argument. It happens...

 

Tut tut, that's so lazy. Just say "sorry, I can't respond to what you said". Show some manners.

 

you referring to rich Mitch or Trump? they are Republicans btw...

lol, I wish I was 25....