Voters open to political revolution to redistribute wealth >>MOD WARNING<<

I will never take advice from someone like you because you don't give a **** about your employees, only what they can do for you.
<Rule 2>. And if you have a problem with paying a living wage, maybe you shouldn't be in business.

Take McDonald's, in Denmark, they DO pay their employees around $25 an hour, and the cost of their products went up around 50 cents. It can be done, and should be done. Automozation is coming, yes, and then you will have nobody to buy your products

 

<Off-topic>

But, I'll tell you that horrible employees demand $25.00 an hour for unskilled work, and then grouse about it.
<Reply to Deleted> I don't want to automate. I'd rather be employing actual people, in gainful work.
<Rule 2/3>

 

Work is work, if it's so unskilled what is the point of hiring? The work needs to be done, and you cannot pay employees less than they can live on. if you do, that's horrible. Haha, no utopia at all, it works all around the rest of the industrialized world. Take scandinavia as an example.

I take it you have never heard of flexicurity, have you? Look it up.

 

your right, it cause them to spend to get the deductions, spend on what you want or pay the tax.....

 

even if in real life your a boos and a good one, that doesn't mean all bosses are good anymore then showing one good employee shows all employees are good

some horrible bosses do contribute to charity.... remember Mcain's wife, started a charity, stole drugs from it, then when a employee snitched on her.... closed it down

one thing rich bad bosses like to do is contribute to charity, so they can say... see what a good person I am

.

 

I give this statement 4 stars.

 

Another "call to revolution" argument. I'll believe it when I see more then a few guys in Oregon carrying guns around against the federal government. I've been hearing this stuff for one cause or another for the past decade and a half.

 

So, you force employers to provide higher wages, got it. Now, how do you keep the jobs from leaving or being elminated long enough to reduce welfare roles long enough and convince politicians not to spend the savings elsewhere long enough to reduce taxes?

Shooting from the hip, how long do you think it would take to create this tax reduction?

You also said that this must happen in addition to taxing the rich more. Now that investment capital cost more, how do you offset that cost of doing business?

 

I agree that the conclusions of the op were misconstrued.

But what I think that the people are responding to is not a "redistribution of wealth", but a more equitable share of the profits based on their own productivity. I am not sure when asking for a more equitable share of the profits for a fair share of the production became a "handout" or "wanting free stuff". Nobody denies that their shouldn't be a scale for pay based on value, but should it be as skewed as it is today? Why should financial investment constitute 90% of the profit, and the actual production/work share so little ?

Most of the righties on this very board seem to think that those who work for a living are freeloaders who just leach off of those who invest money. And it's a ridiculous premise/place to start from.

 

So raising taxes and taking away that incentive will make them find ways of hiding their income, more than they do already, and the country doesn't get invested into, and jobs are not created, just like it is now, so what is the point?

 

They already have well financed strongholds, and they are now getting autonomous war robots made.

Meanwhile, they are disarming our armories.

 

no, all big tax cuts for rich should require spending... so spending, no tax cut

.

 

Every one wants revolution, till its time to do revolution type things.

 

Online poll?

LMFAO!

 

IMO the means of production should not in and of themselves be taxed, just personal profits from them.

 

That could not be more untrue.

The cost of living is ALWAYS growing, and is in no way married to wages. The cost of living grows solely based on supply and demand by region

 

Waaaaay back during the "Gipper" years, with the GOP guys all gaga over Ayn Rand and "trickle-down" ("p*ss on you") economics, I understood that somewhere some really smart Capitalist should be investing in inexpensive but decent editions of "The Communist Manifesto" …

See, "Marxist" economic analysis has always been *spot*on* even though practical application of Marxist historical idealism was never a good idea …
(Both the ideologue Marxists and the conscience-less laissez faire Capitalists are naive about human nature …)

 

<Rule 3>
Let's just give everyone $2,000 per hour

 

You are wealthy as compared to someone who is really poor. You have a computer, electricity and a lot of free time apparently. So how much more are you going to pay?
<Trolling>

 

Well &#8230;
There is comparative wealth &#8230; and then there is EXTRAORDINARY wealth &#8230; ASTONISHING wealth &#8230;

Yes, I agree that I am very wealthy compared to a homeless person who has little to no income at all &#8230; BUT ...

 

The top 20% already pay 80% of the Federal income tax.

How much more do you want to steal from them???

 

What would a person have to do to "enhance their effectiveness" that would merit a sizable raise?

What have the CEOs and Board of Directors done to "enhance their effectiveness" to merit the sizable yearly pay with bonuses they get?

 

You would be wrong. The chart below only goes back to 1960, but ones that go back to the 20's show rates for the top 10 percent much higher also

View attachment 40817

Simplifying the tax code, in every permutation pushed today makes it a regressive system. I'm not advocating changing taxes only on the rich. Taxes, when used properly should not be designed to benefit any one individual, but should be designed to benefit the economy as a whole. Todays tax code benefits those at the top in many ways other than just their personal taxes. One of the most glaring beneifts in the tax code is the "Salary" benefit. It incentivizes companies to make more people salaried employees, and as a side benefit changes the rules for the amount of hours you can work without overtime. So companies actually get to double dip !!!!

Simplifying the tax code would be a good thing, but eventually even that code would become bastardized by those who have the power. So any change in the tax code has to lock out any changes, and the only way to do that is to take money out of politics

 

If you have one please use it, every time I look they are sold out.

For real though. Manufacturing jobs have slowly been leaving this country for years which used to allow a person to make a good living.

I also want to point out that many on here are talking about the hard working business OWNERS. Most major businesses are corporations which are not owned by a person, but persons which then makes a "worker" and not so much an owner. So do all of the people on the board of directors really work that much harder than the guy in the plant. Like all jobs I'm sure some do and some don't, so why over the years have their salaries continuously increase in good sized chunks, but the plant workers have not.

Are the people on the board of directors better educated....yes so they do deserve more for the job. Do they really put in that many more hours? I would wager that some do, but many I think do not or not by much.

You see where I'm going here? If you own the business where you created it from the ground up or bought it you have the right to determine what wages you pay, but if the business is a corporation it is highly likely that the person that started that business is not on that board....at least for long

 

Back when the US had no competition on the world stage, had not gone through globalization, had a manufacturing base, etc. Funny how you guys always seem to forget those minor details. Try 94% tax rates today, see every business owner move somewhere else. Great plan! Then who are you going to work for?