The W
Views: 101428283
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.07 0201
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - California State Motto: We hate jobs! Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2(1626 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (26 total)
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 131/330
EXP: 396204
For next: 8571

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3889 days
Last activity: 2955 days
#21 Posted on 9.5.03 2332.37
Reposted on: 9.5.10 2337.55


    Why is it okay for private businesses to operate anyway they want, even at the expense of their own employees?


Because a job is not a birthright. It is a free country, and if you are unhappy with the wages you are recieving, you can work somewhere else. And furthermore, it's ok because the businesses are *private*, the government does not own them. It is in a business owner's best interest to treat his or her employees well, or the employees will be taken by an employer that knows what he's doing. This is the whole reason that Libertarians, "Big L" and "Small L" alike, oppose the minimum wage. What is the difference between a privately owned home and a privately owned business? Would you accept it if the government decided you could be fined if you didn't feed your guests a certain amount of food? No, I don't think you would.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 99/274
EXP: 302289
For next: 5824

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3962 days
Last activity: 3907 days
#22 Posted on 10.5.03 0209.11
Reposted on: 10.5.10 0218.52
Sorry Moe: tax cuts increase revenue. If you don't believe me, you can refer to this breif academic paper from Canada, or the fact that it worked in Russia.

The Canadian paper doesn't actually get into anything regarding specifics, and the reason switching to a flat tax worked in Russia is because Putin established the flat tax at the same time as he removed most of the tax loopholes that existed in the Russian corporate sector (which caused quite a few American companies to pull out of Russia entirely). The flat tax didn't rejigger Russian government revenues - enforcing tax laws did.

As for tax cuts enhancing the economic performance of a country, it can happen, but only if those tax cuts are enacted responsibly. Dividend tax elimination is by no means the definition of a responsible tax cut, nor are most of the tax cuts that Bush has proposed. If you want to give a boost to the economy, you make more money available to the lower classes, because they put it back directly into the economy. Trickle-down theory has been exposed as a sham for nearly a quarter of a century now, but somehow people keep pushing it.
Michrome
Head cheese
Level: 39

Posts: 132/330
EXP: 396204
For next: 8571

Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3889 days
Last activity: 2955 days
#23 Posted on 10.5.03 1016.20
Reposted on: 10.5.10 1021.41
It can happen when most of the benefits go to small business owners, and when there are spending cuts as well.
dMr
Andouille
Level: 90

Posts: 678/2215
EXP: 6938144
For next: 250492

Since: 2.11.02
From: Edinburgh, Scotland

Since last post: 8 days
Last activity: 13 hours
#24 Posted on 10.5.03 1157.26
Reposted on: 10.5.10 1159.01

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    There's the fundamental difference between you and I. You view CEOs as the hardest working people in America. I view the immigrant cab-drivers and housekeepers as the hardest working people in America. And regardless, does a CEO work a hundred times harder than a cab driver? Do they work ten times harder than an emergency-room doctor? There's a lot of jobs that require 65 hour weeks. In some of the you make $20,000, and in others you make $20 million.

    I'm all for living the American dream, getting rewarded for hard work, and making a better life for you kids. But in the last 20 years or so, once you've gotten up to the top 1% or so, it's just gotten ridiculous.



Supply and demand baby. Welcome to capitalism.

Does Alan Iversen, David Beckham, A-rod or Mr CEO work at a level so infinatley higher than the rest of us that they deserve their wages on the basis of effort? No.

But theres probably only a handful (if any) people who could replace them, and their respective employers pay them at a level that they feel reflects the rare nature of their skills and their value to the company.

It may not seem 'fair' to us, but I doubt you'd get many people knocking back multi million dollar contracts because they have a moral problem with it.
godking
Chourico
Level: 36

Posts: 102/274
EXP: 302289
For next: 5824

Since: 20.10.02
From: Toronto

Since last post: 3962 days
Last activity: 3907 days
#25 Posted on 10.5.03 1517.40
Reposted on: 10.5.10 1517.40
It can happen when most of the benefits go to small business owners,

This is certainly true, but tax cuts that are supposedly for small businesses always seem to end up benefitting large corporations. The 1991 tax credit for employee training that Bush Sr. pushed through, for example, is disproportionately used by fast-food companies that claim that teaching someone to recognize the beep when the fries are done qualifies as "skill training."

I've never understood why some conservatives who aren't directly embedded into the political system (and thus have nothing to gain) oppose campaign finance reform. It's exactly what would help stop this sort of thing.

and when there are spending cuts as well.

This isn't true in the slightest. The economy's performance can be tied to government spending, but only on the basis that when the government directly injects more money into the economy by spending, the economy gets a shot in the arm. (This is the basis of pork-barrel politics.)

Saying that spending cuts help the economy is entirely disingenous, beause unless those spending cuts have anything to do with fairly applied tax relief - which they almost never are - you're not going to get dick except for a less ably serving government. (I realize you believe that this is a good thing.)
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 92

Posts: 126/2290
EXP: 7510922
For next: 246045

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#26 Posted on 12.5.03 1448.16
Reposted on: 12.5.10 1450.40

    Originally posted by Michrome
    Because a job is not a birthright. It is a free country, and if you are unhappy with the wages you are recieving, you can work somewhere else.


If you have skills in an area that only earns so much a year, then you are pretty much stuck in a certain income bracket regardless of the company. Certain job titles only pay certain wages regardless of who you work for, and regardless of the value of service to the company. I know I would sure as hell miss the janitor more than a number of my co-workers (and I am willing to bet they make more, and do far less, than he does).


    Originally posted by Michrome

    And furthermore, it's ok because the businesses are *private*, the government does not own them. It is in a business owner's best interest to treat his or her employees well, or the employees will be taken by an employer that knows what he's doing.



Yet the affect a great deal more than just their company, despite being private. The public at large can be affected greatly by the descisions of a private company on many fronts. Why should they be allowed to run rampant, just because they are "privately" owned?


    Originally posted by Michrome

    This is the whole reason that Libertarians, "Big L" and "Small L" alike, oppose the minimum wage. What is the difference between a privately owned home and a privately owned business? Would you accept it if the government decided you could be fined if you didn't feed your guests a certain amount of food? No, I don't think you would.



Where I grew up, in the most conservative part of California, you could not paint your house certain colours, have a car parked in your driveway for long periods of time, make additions to your home, without written approval of the home-owners association. They wanted nothing that create a negative aesthetic in the neighborhood.

You are expected to treat people within your care well - at least provide the most basic of human necessities (food, water and shelter). We do have expectations as to how people living in our society are supposed to be treated by others. But those very basic expectations seem to go out the window when dealing with private corporations.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Pages: Prev 1 2Thread ahead: The whole judges thing
Next thread: Somebody Call Robert Byrd and Henry Waxman....
Previous thread: For consideration
(1626 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - California State Motto: We hate jobs!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.193 seconds.