Free Money

[Ray From Cleveland]

When the wealthy get money, it's not government money, it's their own that they created.

If we were neighbors and I went into your house and stole 100 bucks a month when you walked your dog, and felt guilty later on, and decided to only steal 75 bucks a month, did I just give you 25 dollars a month?

There is no such thing as free money; only money somebody else made. When government takes less of the money you made, they aren't giving you a thing. They are just taking less of your property away.

The wealthy don't create all the money they earn, they tend to create only a tiny fraction of it, through having companies where "employees" create that wealth for them or buying shares in a company where the employees of that company create the wealth.

Companies don't employ people out of charity, they do so in order to have someone create wealth for them. When employers take the lions share of the wealth a person creates, that's theft. That the wealthy have created unjust laws to allow them to steal the wealth created by their employees, that's legalised theft.

"In 2015, CEOs made 286 times the salary of a typical worker and 299 times more in 2014. Compare that to 1978, when CEO earnings were roughly 30 times the typical worker’s salary."

CEOs make $15.6 million on average—here’s how much their pay has increased compared to yours over the year

That's legalised theft.

That is so convoluted I don't know where to begin.

Employees do not create wealth. They create a paycheck. Only the employer can create wealth.

Lets say you wanted to get into the stock market. You hire a firm and get a broker. Your broker takes a percentage of what stocks you buy--not how much those stocks make. He or she does all the work. All you did was provide the money.

You hit the jackpot. Because of your research and hunches, you make a million dollars on that stock. Should your broker be entitled to 30% of your fortune? Of course not. Why? Because the broker made an agreement with you to earn X amount of money on the amount of stock you purchased, and that's it. You owe him nothing more. But wait! He did all the work! It doesn't matter.

Until employers start kidnapping people to work at their facilities, you don't have a point here. YOU freely agreed to do X job. You agreed to do that job for X amount of money and/or benefits. You did your part by providing the labor, and your employer did his part by paying you for that labor. You are not entitled to anything more unless you got a job that offered profit sharing as a benefit.

If you think employees should get paid based on the profit of the company, would it not be fair that you work for much less when the company is not doing so good? For instance, let's say you are a drill press operator. You make $20.00 per hour because your company is doing good. If the company loses their largest customer, would you be willing to do that same job for $3.00 an hour?

Ok, it that's too convoluted, let's take those points one at a time.

Why do you think companies employ people?

Do you think they do it out of charity or because they need those employees to make a profit?

They employ people to make a profit., just like you employ your stock broker to buy stocks that make you a profit.

Ok, so you acknowlede they're employed to make a profit. Is wealth not produced by profit?

No, they are hired to make the company a profit. Your cut is the wage you agreed to work for.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When the wealthy get money, it's not government money, it's their own that they created.

If we were neighbors and I went into your house and stole 100 bucks a month when you walked your dog, and felt guilty later on, and decided to only steal 75 bucks a month, did I just give you 25 dollars a month?

There is no such thing as free money; only money somebody else made. When government takes less of the money you made, they aren't giving you a thing. They are just taking less of your property away.

Politicians work for themselves not the people as they are employed to do. They also have ridiculous expenses, the vast majority of that is free money as they don't work for it.

Quantative easing = free money, but it goes to the banks. It's money created out of thin air, numbers on a screen.

Shareholder Dividends = free money, they don't work for it, but those who manage to acquire enough money to buy the priviledge, can get this free money.

Company owners = many (not all) simply don't pay their workers a fair cut of the money they earn. Yes it's fair for company owners to get a fair cut, even fair that they should get more that the workers as they created and maintain the company, but not the massive percentage most choose to take, because without the workers the millions and billions the owners choose to taketake wouldn't exist.

Banks - for every £1000 a bank holds, they can by law lend out £9000 and charge for doing so. That's free money, they are getting paid for the rent of money they don't have. Free money.

Welfare in work - Companies who pay so little that their workers have to be subsidised by the state. That money they don't pay to workers is part of their profits, the company hasn't earned enough money to finance it's payouts so the government makes up the difference. That's free money.

Notice for all the above, the free money goes to those who can afford to buy into the free money club, while everyone else is trained to believe that "free money" is somehow wrong.

99% of people think free money is somehow wrong, the other 1% are mainly wealthy.

You are delusional.

When you risk your money, it is earned money. There is no such thing as free money. Just because you didn't earn it with a shovel or putting french fries in a hopper doesn't mean it's not earned.

I'm a working landlord. Besides my paycheck, I rent apartments (that I BOUGHT with my money) to other people. In return for me giving them a place to live, they pay me money to live here.

I haven't been on a vacation in 30 years. I spend all my vacation time getting to projects I couldn't get to while working. While my tenants come home and enjoy a beautiful summer day, I'm out there doing yard work or attending to a broken sink. In the winter time when my tenants simply leave their warm car and go into their warm apartment, I had to snowplow the drive and parking lot for them to get in or out. If we get a heavy snow overnight, I have to wake up at 4:00 am to do the drive while my tenants remain in their warm bed.

Hopefully in the end, I'll have a nice retirement to supplement my SS and 401K. Should government take that money from me because I took a huge risk and worked my ass off all of my life so I can have a comfortable retirement?

Do you have any logic arguments to refute my claims or just insult?

Why are you so afraid about admiting the truth of the way our society functions? You seem determined to take everything I say as a personal attack on you, despite the fact I know/knew nothing of your circumstances.

I'm sure you knew nothing about my circumstance. That's why I explained it to you. And I never insulted you.

The way our society is supposed to function is based on a reward system. Those who accomplish more are rewarded more. However there is a Democrat system too. Reward failure and penalize success.

When you do things the conservative way, you create more givers than takers. With the Democrat way, more takers than givers.

Extrapolate the Democrat system to grade schools. For the kids that study hard and ace their tests, teachers give them a C+. For kids that don't study and barely pass their tests, the teachers give them an A. After a short while, what you'd end up with is more kids not trying than those that do.

The Democrat way simply doesn't work.

Given you're roughtly in the top 7% of earners, but do not consider yourself "privileged", would you say the current sytem works?

How do you put me at the top 7%? I wish. I'm just a middle-class working guy.

There is nothing wrong with the system provided Democrats don't get their hands on it. There is something wrong with the people.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Perhaps but I don’t see how Democrats are helping by calling me privileged for being white and saying that making $250k a year means I should pay more in taxes. At least the GOP lowered taxes

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

Explain "more out of the system"? I also lease two cars, so I am helping the manufacturers, dealers, etc. I pay RE tax. I pay excise tax. I have to pay for my kids education. That $250k and actually it is closer to $280k doesn't carry as much weight as you may think. To tax me at 40% is insanity? How am I priveleged? I didn't just stumble on these earnings, I had to fight and claw to attain them.

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

Not in absolute dollars but why can they not pay a similar %? And I disagree that I am "privileged".

Incidently, to be in the top 5% earners you need to earn around $300k, to be in the top 10% you need to earn around $195k. That puts you approximately in the top 7% earners. I'd say that's technically being within the group of the privileged.

Last I cheked I was in the top 5%. Personally I think that puts me in a privileged position that I very much appreciate. That appreciation includes being happy to pay tax, provided it helps to buffer ths dificulties faced by those who are less privileged, becaue they're the reason WE'RE not walking around knee deep in trash, the reason I can go out to enjoy a meal and be waited on, the reason I can go into a shop and have somone facilitate my purchases, the reason I don't have to take my own rubbish to the dump, the reason I work in a clean office, on the days when I work on site, the reason I can have somone else take care of my laundry and on and on. MY life would be less comfortable without them, they shouldnt have to scrape a living to facilitate MY comfort.

#1) I pay local taxes for Trash...it is not free and those persons do pretty well.
#2) Restaurants charge a lot and I leave a hefty tip to help the waitstaff. Well 20%.
#3) I shop online.
#4) We have a management company clean the office. We pay them well.
#5) We do our own laundry. Dry cleaning, no, but that helps another business.

So how much of my earned monies should I give to someone else because I worked hard and went to graduate school to achieve my level of "privelege and comfort"?

 

[Dana7360]

Justin Haskins: Democrat Rashida Tlaib proposes disastrous cash giveaway -- guess who’s going to pay for it? | Fox News

This is a huge problem. We need to provide incentives for people to work and not to game the system and receive free monies. Regardless of party affiliation we need to just be smart and understand basic economics.

You might trying hearing it from her lips.
Rep. Tlaib unveils bold new policy for America's poor

I'm glad someone actually wants to address the problem but her solution isn't the answer.

All it does is make big business richer.

It's not the government's responsibility to pay people wages. It's the government's responsibility to make sure that business pays proper wages that support those who work for them. It's the government's responsibility to raise wages by raising the minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage has not been increased since the bush boy years. That's a disgrace and has contributed to keeping wages down or stagnant.

Companies have a responsibility to pay a living wage. Not pay so low that people need to go on public assistance or for our government to have to use tax dollars to subsidize their wages just so they can survive.

 

[Beyond]

Republicans pretty much destroyed the middle.class.

Perhaps but I don’t see how Democrats are helping by calling me privileged for being white and saying that making $250k a year means I should pay more in taxes. At least the GOP lowered taxes

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

This is the failed logic of the left: If one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

There is no system to get anything out of. Every single American has the opportunity to invest. If you want to live your life working until you die or retire, have four kids, have the newest iPhone, the newest car, the biggest internet/ cable combination, four video game systems, unlimited data/ cell phone service for your entire family's smart phones, then of course you didn't even look at investing.

But while you were doing all that, other people were giving the best part of their lives to get an advanced education. Others invested their money in their own business. Most made investments in one of the several markets we have.

When you live life like the latter, you have to make a hell of a lot of sacrifices. You may have to give up vacations, work seven days a week, drive a very economic vehicle, don't turn your thermostat past 60 in the winter and under 70 in the summer, do with the minimum technology you need, don't get married or have children, live well below your means even if that house is way too small or not in the best of neighborhoods.

All investments come with risks; risks not seen by simply having a job. Yet if you do all those things and eventually live well, government should come along and take what you sacrificed for to give to those that didn't?

View attachment 264921

Interesting fact: Aproximately 5% of humans move from the economic sphere they are born into. That's true regarding moving into a higher or lower economic sphere.

The biggest indicator of one's eventual financial (or any other) position, is the position one is born into.

What we're taking about here is condeming people for being human, for being in the 95% majority.

There are people who don't earn enough to cover their basic needs. Would you suggest they give up eating for a few weeks in order to invest their grocery money and get a fraction % return on their investment each quarter? When people are in real debt, just covering the basics, they don't have money to invest. I'm referring only to working people, those who don't/can't work aren't even on the investment radar.

Okay, if you don't earn enough to cover basic needs, is that your fault or the fault of our society?

We live in a society where all are welcome to improve their plight. You can go to school, learn a trade, open your own business, whatever you want. And yes, people on disability would have a much harder time participating.

However most personal failures are because of the individual--not society.

I was making a pickup at a steel place a few months ago. The guy loading me was telling me how they were having a hard time getting people to work there. They start you out at around 17 bucks an hour, but as you learn more about the shop, you can quickly make it to about 20 bucks an hour.

He said HR held group job interviews. They start out with about 20 people who show up. Before the HR person starts the seminar on what they do, he told everybody right from the start that the company does drug screenings. If you can't pass the drug test, you would be wasting your time sticking around for the seminar. He said all but seven walked out.

Out of the seven, only two stayed to put in an application. One worked for about two weeks and quit, the other about a month and a half.

There's one of the problems with our current system, it blames the victims for their condition. As of about 2 years ago, 90% of the population were earning an average of $36k

When 90% of the population is struggling to get by, the problem is with the system not the people.

If you produced a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

 

[Beyond]

The wealthy don't create all the money they earn, they tend to create only a tiny fraction of it, through having companies where "employees" create that wealth for them or buying shares in a company where the employees of that company create the wealth.

Companies don't employ people out of charity, they do so in order to have someone create wealth for them. When employers take the lions share of the wealth a person creates, that's theft. That the wealthy have created unjust laws to allow them to steal the wealth created by their employees, that's legalised theft.

"In 2015, CEOs made 286 times the salary of a typical worker and 299 times more in 2014. Compare that to 1978, when CEO earnings were roughly 30 times the typical worker’s salary."

CEOs make $15.6 million on average—here’s how much their pay has increased compared to yours over the year

That's legalised theft.

That is so convoluted I don't know where to begin.

Employees do not create wealth. They create a paycheck. Only the employer can create wealth.

Lets say you wanted to get into the stock market. You hire a firm and get a broker. Your broker takes a percentage of what stocks you buy--not how much those stocks make. He or she does all the work. All you did was provide the money.

You hit the jackpot. Because of your research and hunches, you make a million dollars on that stock. Should your broker be entitled to 30% of your fortune? Of course not. Why? Because the broker made an agreement with you to earn X amount of money on the amount of stock you purchased, and that's it. You owe him nothing more. But wait! He did all the work! It doesn't matter.

Until employers start kidnapping people to work at their facilities, you don't have a point here. YOU freely agreed to do X job. You agreed to do that job for X amount of money and/or benefits. You did your part by providing the labor, and your employer did his part by paying you for that labor. You are not entitled to anything more unless you got a job that offered profit sharing as a benefit.

If you think employees should get paid based on the profit of the company, would it not be fair that you work for much less when the company is not doing so good? For instance, let's say you are a drill press operator. You make $20.00 per hour because your company is doing good. If the company loses their largest customer, would you be willing to do that same job for $3.00 an hour?

Ok, it that's too convoluted, let's take those points one at a time.

Why do you think companies employ people?

Do you think they do it out of charity or because they need those employees to make a profit?

They employ people to make a profit., just like you employ your stock broker to buy stocks that make you a profit.

Ok, so you acknowlede they're employed to make a profit. Is wealth not produced by profit?

No, they are hired to make the company a profit. Your cut is the wage you agreed to work for.

"Agree" is a relative term, when one is powerless to make the choice one prefers, one is coerced into "agreeing" with a situation one knows to be unfair. The way our system works, puts most meople in that powerless position No one wants an employer to take the majority of the wealth one makes, but the employer has the winning cards, so is able to force an unfair contract.

Also by your acknowlegement, the employee is the one who created the profit, therefor creates the wealth, the majority of which is creamed off by the employer. It's theft, pure and simple, a theft tht wouldn't happen if the employee were negotiating from a position of equality.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Perhaps but I don’t see how Democrats are helping by calling me privileged for being white and saying that making $250k a year means I should pay more in taxes. At least the GOP lowered taxes

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

Explain "more out of the system"? I also lease two cars, so I am helping the manufacturers, dealers, etc. I pay RE tax. I pay excise tax. I have to pay for my kids education. That $250k and actually it is closer to $280k doesn't carry as much weight as you may think. To tax me at 40% is insanity? How am I priveleged? I didn't just stumble on these earnings, I had to fight and claw to attain them.

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

Not in absolute dollars but why can they not pay a similar %? And I disagree that I am "privileged".

Why not a similar %? Because they are not getting as much out of the system as those on higher income. The system has not served them as well. Thisisn't about attributing blame, it about looking at facts.

If I was handed a car that worked perfectly, was comfortble to drive, I'd expect to pay more for it than a car that was breaking down every day and leaking oil onto my driveway. The same with paying for a sytem that works better for me than it does for others, regardless of why it works well for me.

It's also absurd for someone who struggles to pay their bills due to a low income, should be handing money over tho the government and then get it back in welfare. (referring to those who can and do work full time jobs.)

Again I've no truck with those doing well, but why pretend they're not doing well, why pretend $250k leave one struggling to pay their way? It doesn't unless they're foolish with their money.

#1) System or are they not go getters like their competitors? We are all born with equal rights.
#2) You should not buy a car that breaks down but you can get around comfortably in a Toyota or an Audi. The Audi will cost you more but will get you to the same place.
#3) Low income is not my fault, it is theirs. My parents came here with $100 and didn't speak the language. No one handed them anything. They have sponsored 10+ families in ~40 years and helped them because they chose to and not because they were forced to. They should be able to spend their monies as they see fit since they earned it.
#4) Because $250k does not go as far as you think. ~30% goes to taxes and cable and cell phones are pricey. In MA the RE taxes are high. Sports cost a lot of money for kids. $250k doesn't take you as far as you think. I am not saying I am poor but I am saying that calling me "rich" is crazy. If I was making $250k in Alabama it would be a different story.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Perhaps but I don’t see how Democrats are helping by calling me privileged for being white and saying that making $250k a year means I should pay more in taxes. At least the GOP lowered taxes

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

This is the failed logic of the left: If one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

There is no system to get anything out of. Every single American has the opportunity to invest. If you want to live your life working until you die or retire, have four kids, have the newest iPhone, the newest car, the biggest internet/ cable combination, four video game systems, unlimited data/ cell phone service for your entire family's smart phones, then of course you didn't even look at investing.

But while you were doing all that, other people were giving the best part of their lives to get an advanced education. Others invested their money in their own business. Most made investments in one of the several markets we have.

When you live life like the latter, you have to make a hell of a lot of sacrifices. You may have to give up vacations, work seven days a week, drive a very economic vehicle, don't turn your thermostat past 60 in the winter and under 70 in the summer, do with the minimum technology you need, don't get married or have children, live well below your means even if that house is way too small or not in the best of neighborhoods.

All investments come with risks; risks not seen by simply having a job. Yet if you do all those things and eventually live well, government should come along and take what you sacrificed for to give to those that didn't?

View attachment 264921

Interesting fact: Aproximately 5% of humans move from the economic sphere they are born into. That's true regarding moving into a higher or lower economic sphere.

The biggest indicator of one's eventual financial (or any other) position, is the position one is born into.

What we're taking about here is condeming people for being human, for being in the 95% majority.

There are people who don't earn enough to cover their basic needs. Would you suggest they give up eating for a few weeks in order to invest their grocery money and get a fraction % return on their investment each quarter? When people are in real debt, just covering the basics, they don't have money to invest. I'm referring only to working people, those who don't/can't work aren't even on the investment radar.

Okay, if you don't earn enough to cover basic needs, is that your fault or the fault of our society?

We live in a society where all are welcome to improve their plight. You can go to school, learn a trade, open your own business, whatever you want. And yes, people on disability would have a much harder time participating.

However most personal failures are because of the individual--not society.

I was making a pickup at a steel place a few months ago. The guy loading me was telling me how they were having a hard time getting people to work there. They start you out at around 17 bucks an hour, but as you learn more about the shop, you can quickly make it to about 20 bucks an hour.

He said HR held group job interviews. They start out with about 20 people who show up. Before the HR person starts the seminar on what they do, he told everybody right from the start that the company does drug screenings. If you can't pass the drug test, you would be wasting your time sticking around for the seminar. He said all but seven walked out.

Out of the seven, only two stayed to put in an application. One worked for about two weeks and quit, the other about a month and a half.

There's one of the problems with our current system, it blames the victims for their condition. As of about 2 years ago, 90% of the population were earning an average of $36k

When 90% of the population is struggling to get by, the problem is with the system not the people.

If you produced a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

Link? 90% of full time working population earns an average of $36k? I find that hard to believe.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Justin Haskins: Democrat Rashida Tlaib proposes disastrous cash giveaway -- guess who’s going to pay for it? | Fox News

This is a huge problem. We need to provide incentives for people to work and not to game the system and receive free monies. Regardless of party affiliation we need to just be smart and understand basic economics.

You might trying hearing it from her lips.
Rep. Tlaib unveils bold new policy for America's poor

I'm glad someone actually wants to address the problem but her solution isn't the answer.

All it does is make big business richer.

It's not the government's responsibility to pay people wages. It's the government's responsibility to make sure that business pays proper wages that support those who work for them. It's the government's responsibility to raise wages by raising the minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage has not been increased since the bush boy years. That's a disgrace and has contributed to keeping wages down or stagnant.

Companies have a responsibility to pay a living wage. Not pay so low that people need to go on public assistance or for our government to have to use tax dollars to subsidize their wages just so they can survive.

Increasing the min. wage just loses jobs as employees turn to automation. Min wage was designed for part timers and students not for those who want to support themselves. As a CPA you should know this, Dana.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Perhaps but I don’t see how Democrats are helping by calling me privileged for being white and saying that making $250k a year means I should pay more in taxes. At least the GOP lowered taxes

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

This is the failed logic of the left: If one has too much, that's the reason others have too little.

There is no system to get anything out of. Every single American has the opportunity to invest. If you want to live your life working until you die or retire, have four kids, have the newest iPhone, the newest car, the biggest internet/ cable combination, four video game systems, unlimited data/ cell phone service for your entire family's smart phones, then of course you didn't even look at investing.

But while you were doing all that, other people were giving the best part of their lives to get an advanced education. Others invested their money in their own business. Most made investments in one of the several markets we have.

When you live life like the latter, you have to make a hell of a lot of sacrifices. You may have to give up vacations, work seven days a week, drive a very economic vehicle, don't turn your thermostat past 60 in the winter and under 70 in the summer, do with the minimum technology you need, don't get married or have children, live well below your means even if that house is way too small or not in the best of neighborhoods.

All investments come with risks; risks not seen by simply having a job. Yet if you do all those things and eventually live well, government should come along and take what you sacrificed for to give to those that didn't?

View attachment 264921

Interesting fact: Aproximately 5% of humans move from the economic sphere they are born into. That's true regarding moving into a higher or lower economic sphere.

The biggest indicator of one's eventual financial (or any other) position, is the position one is born into.

What we're taking about here is condeming people for being human, for being in the 95% majority.

There are people who don't earn enough to cover their basic needs. Would you suggest they give up eating for a few weeks in order to invest their grocery money and get a fraction % return on their investment each quarter? When people are in real debt, just covering the basics, they don't have money to invest. I'm referring only to working people, those who don't/can't work aren't even on the investment radar.

Okay, if you don't earn enough to cover basic needs, is that your fault or the fault of our society?

We live in a society where all are welcome to improve their plight. You can go to school, learn a trade, open your own business, whatever you want. And yes, people on disability would have a much harder time participating.

However most personal failures are because of the individual--not society.

I was making a pickup at a steel place a few months ago. The guy loading me was telling me how they were having a hard time getting people to work there. They start you out at around 17 bucks an hour, but as you learn more about the shop, you can quickly make it to about 20 bucks an hour.

He said HR held group job interviews. They start out with about 20 people who show up. Before the HR person starts the seminar on what they do, he told everybody right from the start that the company does drug screenings. If you can't pass the drug test, you would be wasting your time sticking around for the seminar. He said all but seven walked out.

Out of the seven, only two stayed to put in an application. One worked for about two weeks and quit, the other about a month and a half.

There's one of the problems with our current system, it blames the victims for their condition. As of about 2 years ago, 90% of the population were earning an average of $36k

When 90% of the population is struggling to get by, the problem is with the system not the people.

If you produced a 90% failure rate at work, would you expect to keep your job?

I have no idea where you get that 90% figure from. To be honest, I don't know anybody in my circle of friends or my family that's actually struggling. Everybody I know goes to work everyday, has a house somewhere; a car within six years old, and are doing just fine. Two of my cousins are wealthy. One runs his own entertainment business and the other just retired. She was a very gifted research doctor.

So I would be willing to say most Americans are doing just fine. Wealthy? Hell no. But you don't need to be wealthy to live comfortably.

 

[Beyond]

Politicians work for themselves not the people as they are employed to do. They also have ridiculous expenses, the vast majority of that is free money as they don't work for it.

Quantative easing = free money, but it goes to the banks. It's money created out of thin air, numbers on a screen.

Shareholder Dividends = free money, they don't work for it, but those who manage to acquire enough money to buy the priviledge, can get this free money.

Company owners = many (not all) simply don't pay their workers a fair cut of the money they earn. Yes it's fair for company owners to get a fair cut, even fair that they should get more that the workers as they created and maintain the company, but not the massive percentage most choose to take, because without the workers the millions and billions the owners choose to taketake wouldn't exist.

Banks - for every £1000 a bank holds, they can by law lend out £9000 and charge for doing so. That's free money, they are getting paid for the rent of money they don't have. Free money.

Welfare in work - Companies who pay so little that their workers have to be subsidised by the state. That money they don't pay to workers is part of their profits, the company hasn't earned enough money to finance it's payouts so the government makes up the difference. That's free money.

Notice for all the above, the free money goes to those who can afford to buy into the free money club, while everyone else is trained to believe that "free money" is somehow wrong.

99% of people think free money is somehow wrong, the other 1% are mainly wealthy.

You are delusional.

When you risk your money, it is earned money. There is no such thing as free money. Just because you didn't earn it with a shovel or putting french fries in a hopper doesn't mean it's not earned.

I'm a working landlord. Besides my paycheck, I rent apartments (that I BOUGHT with my money) to other people. In return for me giving them a place to live, they pay me money to live here.

I haven't been on a vacation in 30 years. I spend all my vacation time getting to projects I couldn't get to while working. While my tenants come home and enjoy a beautiful summer day, I'm out there doing yard work or attending to a broken sink. In the winter time when my tenants simply leave their warm car and go into their warm apartment, I had to snowplow the drive and parking lot for them to get in or out. If we get a heavy snow overnight, I have to wake up at 4:00 am to do the drive while my tenants remain in their warm bed.

Hopefully in the end, I'll have a nice retirement to supplement my SS and 401K. Should government take that money from me because I took a huge risk and worked my ass off all of my life so I can have a comfortable retirement?

Do you have any logic arguments to refute my claims or just insult?

Why are you so afraid about admiting the truth of the way our society functions? You seem determined to take everything I say as a personal attack on you, despite the fact I know/knew nothing of your circumstances.

I'm sure you knew nothing about my circumstance. That's why I explained it to you. And I never insulted you.

The way our society is supposed to function is based on a reward system. Those who accomplish more are rewarded more. However there is a Democrat system too. Reward failure and penalize success.

When you do things the conservative way, you create more givers than takers. With the Democrat way, more takers than givers.

Extrapolate the Democrat system to grade schools. For the kids that study hard and ace their tests, teachers give them a C+. For kids that don't study and barely pass their tests, the teachers give them an A. After a short while, what you'd end up with is more kids not trying than those that do.

The Democrat way simply doesn't work.

Given you're roughtly in the top 7% of earners, but do not consider yourself "privileged", would you say the current sytem works?

How do you put me at the top 7%? I wish. I'm just a middle-class working guy.

There is nothing wrong with the system provided Democrats don't get their hands on it. There is something wrong with the people.

It's a couple of years old, so 7% is an approximation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Justin Haskins: Democrat Rashida Tlaib proposes disastrous cash giveaway -- guess who’s going to pay for it? | Fox News

This is a huge problem. We need to provide incentives for people to work and not to game the system and receive free monies. Regardless of party affiliation we need to just be smart and understand basic economics.

What do you mean by incentives?

You must know that Welfare (AFDC) no longer exists. And, every State operates under TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families] in a manner the State Government establishes. Thus, "free money" is limited to Corporations and especially banks.

 

[Dana7360]

Just another bunch of bullshit brought to you by an idiot.

She wants we tax payers to pay people for doing absolutely nothing?

Oh wait. We already do that. Its called welfare and medicade. We pay freeloaders every month to sit on their asses and do nothing.

Her bill won't make it through the senate and you can bet it won't make it through the house either.

Woman is a moron.

We pay farmers not to plant crops on some of their land...is this any different?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Yup. I like to eat and I'd bet you do as well.

Big difference between farmers who actually work and freeloaders who don't.

How does farmers NOT planting and being paid for not planting help you to eat?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The poster you're replying to is just fine with socialism as long as she directly benefits from it.

 

[Beyond]

Politicians work for themselves not the people as they are employed to do. They also have ridiculous expenses, the vast majority of that is free money as they don't work for it.

Quantative easing = free money, but it goes to the banks. It's money created out of thin air, numbers on a screen.

Shareholder Dividends = free money, they don't work for it, but those who manage to acquire enough money to buy the priviledge, can get this free money.

Company owners = many (not all) simply don't pay their workers a fair cut of the money they earn. Yes it's fair for company owners to get a fair cut, even fair that they should get more that the workers as they created and maintain the company, but not the massive percentage most choose to take, because without the workers the millions and billions the owners choose to taketake wouldn't exist.

Banks - for every £1000 a bank holds, they can by law lend out £9000 and charge for doing so. That's free money, they are getting paid for the rent of money they don't have. Free money.

Welfare in work - Companies who pay so little that their workers have to be subsidised by the state. That money they don't pay to workers is part of their profits, the company hasn't earned enough money to finance it's payouts so the government makes up the difference. That's free money.

Notice for all the above, the free money goes to those who can afford to buy into the free money club, while everyone else is trained to believe that "free money" is somehow wrong.

99% of people think free money is somehow wrong, the other 1% are mainly wealthy.

You are delusional.

When you risk your money, it is earned money. There is no such thing as free money. Just because you didn't earn it with a shovel or putting french fries in a hopper doesn't mean it's not earned.

I'm a working landlord. Besides my paycheck, I rent apartments (that I BOUGHT with my money) to other people. In return for me giving them a place to live, they pay me money to live here.

I haven't been on a vacation in 30 years. I spend all my vacation time getting to projects I couldn't get to while working. While my tenants come home and enjoy a beautiful summer day, I'm out there doing yard work or attending to a broken sink. In the winter time when my tenants simply leave their warm car and go into their warm apartment, I had to snowplow the drive and parking lot for them to get in or out. If we get a heavy snow overnight, I have to wake up at 4:00 am to do the drive while my tenants remain in their warm bed.

Hopefully in the end, I'll have a nice retirement to supplement my SS and 401K. Should government take that money from me because I took a huge risk and worked my ass off all of my life so I can have a comfortable retirement?

Do you have any logic arguments to refute my claims or just insult?

Why are you so afraid about admiting the truth of the way our society functions? You seem determined to take everything I say as a personal attack on you, despite the fact I know/knew nothing of your circumstances.

I'm sure you knew nothing about my circumstance. That's why I explained it to you. And I never insulted you.

The way our society is supposed to function is based on a reward system. Those who accomplish more are rewarded more. However there is a Democrat system too. Reward failure and penalize success.

When you do things the conservative way, you create more givers than takers. With the Democrat way, more takers than givers.

Extrapolate the Democrat system to grade schools. For the kids that study hard and ace their tests, teachers give them a C+. For kids that don't study and barely pass their tests, the teachers give them an A. After a short while, what you'd end up with is more kids not trying than those that do.

The Democrat way simply doesn't work.

Given you're roughtly in the top 7% of earners, but do not consider yourself "privileged", would you say the current sytem works?

How do you put me at the top 7%? I wish. I'm just a middle-class working guy.

There is nothing wrong with the system provided Democrats don't get their hands on it. There is something wrong with the people.

If the system fails around 90% of the people, the problem is with the system, not the people, regardless of which party is in power.

 

[Beyond]

If you are earning $250 a year your are indeed privileged. You are getting more out of the system that most, so it seems fair that you should put more into the system than most. Nothing wrong with having such a privilege and any tax paid shouldn't be redicuously high, but if you're getting more out of the system than others why is it wrong that you pay more into the system than them?

Explain "more out of the system"? I also lease two cars, so I am helping the manufacturers, dealers, etc. I pay RE tax. I pay excise tax. I have to pay for my kids education. That $250k and actually it is closer to $280k doesn't carry as much weight as you may think. To tax me at 40% is insanity? How am I priveleged? I didn't just stumble on these earnings, I had to fight and claw to attain them.

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

Not in absolute dollars but why can they not pay a similar %? And I disagree that I am "privileged".

Incidently, to be in the top 5% earners you need to earn around $300k, to be in the top 10% you need to earn around $195k. That puts you approximately in the top 7% earners. I'd say that's technically being within the group of the privileged.

Last I cheked I was in the top 5%. Personally I think that puts me in a privileged position that I very much appreciate. That appreciation includes being happy to pay tax, provided it helps to buffer ths dificulties faced by those who are less privileged, becaue they're the reason WE'RE not walking around knee deep in trash, the reason I can go out to enjoy a meal and be waited on, the reason I can go into a shop and have somone facilitate my purchases, the reason I don't have to take my own rubbish to the dump, the reason I work in a clean office, on the days when I work on site, the reason I can have somone else take care of my laundry and on and on. MY life would be less comfortable without them, they shouldnt have to scrape a living to facilitate MY comfort.

#1) I pay local taxes for Trash...it is not free and those persons do pretty well.
#2) Restaurants charge a lot and I leave a hefty tip to help the waitstaff. Well 20%.
#3) I shop online.
#4) We have a management company clean the office. We pay them well.
#5) We do our own laundry. Dry cleaning, no, but that helps another business.

So how much of my earned monies should I give to someone else because I worked hard and went to graduate school to achieve my level of "privelege and comfort"?

I know it isn't free, that's my point. I don't understand why people say we shouldn't pay for it, nor why those who do best from the system shouldn't pay more than those it doesn't serve so well.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are delusional.

When you risk your money, it is earned money. There is no such thing as free money. Just because you didn't earn it with a shovel or putting french fries in a hopper doesn't mean it's not earned.

I'm a working landlord. Besides my paycheck, I rent apartments (that I BOUGHT with my money) to other people. In return for me giving them a place to live, they pay me money to live here.

I haven't been on a vacation in 30 years. I spend all my vacation time getting to projects I couldn't get to while working. While my tenants come home and enjoy a beautiful summer day, I'm out there doing yard work or attending to a broken sink. In the winter time when my tenants simply leave their warm car and go into their warm apartment, I had to snowplow the drive and parking lot for them to get in or out. If we get a heavy snow overnight, I have to wake up at 4:00 am to do the drive while my tenants remain in their warm bed.

Hopefully in the end, I'll have a nice retirement to supplement my SS and 401K. Should government take that money from me because I took a huge risk and worked my ass off all of my life so I can have a comfortable retirement?

Do you have any logic arguments to refute my claims or just insult?

Why are you so afraid about admiting the truth of the way our society functions? You seem determined to take everything I say as a personal attack on you, despite the fact I know/knew nothing of your circumstances.

I'm sure you knew nothing about my circumstance. That's why I explained it to you. And I never insulted you.

The way our society is supposed to function is based on a reward system. Those who accomplish more are rewarded more. However there is a Democrat system too. Reward failure and penalize success.

When you do things the conservative way, you create more givers than takers. With the Democrat way, more takers than givers.

Extrapolate the Democrat system to grade schools. For the kids that study hard and ace their tests, teachers give them a C+. For kids that don't study and barely pass their tests, the teachers give them an A. After a short while, what you'd end up with is more kids not trying than those that do.

The Democrat way simply doesn't work.

Given you're roughtly in the top 7% of earners, but do not consider yourself "privileged", would you say the current sytem works?

How do you put me at the top 7%? I wish. I'm just a middle-class working guy.

There is nothing wrong with the system provided Democrats don't get their hands on it. There is something wrong with the people.

It's a couple of years old, so 7% is an approximation.

You used the term "struggling." What is considered struggling?

 

[Dana7360]

How many times have I enlightened you on this?
Why do you like to play stupid?

Did I ask you a question little man?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

How do you make the same ignorant mistake over and over again?
How are you so unable to make such simple distinctions?
How do you view investing in Guadalupe and her litter and investing in our food source as one and the same?

They are both examples of socialistic policies...things that people who claim to be on the right were once against.



Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Negative
All sane folks view investing in our food source one and the same with military and infrastructure. Sorry bud.

You can spin it however you like...but the Govt is influencing the means of both production and distribution as well as controlling the price...textbook socialistic policy.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

The government isn't just influencing the means of production they most certainly control it.

The government does influence the distribution.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Justin Haskins: Democrat Rashida Tlaib proposes disastrous cash giveaway -- guess who’s going to pay for it? | Fox News

This is a huge problem. We need to provide incentives for people to work and not to game the system and receive free monies. Regardless of party affiliation we need to just be smart and understand basic economics.

What do you mean by incentives?

You must know that Welfare (AFDC) no longer exists. And, every State operates under TANF [Temporary Assistance to Needy Families] in a manner the State Government establishes. Thus, "free money" is limited to Corporations and especially banks.

Incentives meaning no free money. Go to job fairs, work with placement agencies, etc.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Explain "more out of the system"? I also lease two cars, so I am helping the manufacturers, dealers, etc. I pay RE tax. I pay excise tax. I have to pay for my kids education. That $250k and actually it is closer to $280k doesn't carry as much weight as you may think. To tax me at 40% is insanity? How am I priveleged? I didn't just stumble on these earnings, I had to fight and claw to attain them.

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

Not in absolute dollars but why can they not pay a similar %? And I disagree that I am "privileged".

Incidently, to be in the top 5% earners you need to earn around $300k, to be in the top 10% you need to earn around $195k. That puts you approximately in the top 7% earners. I'd say that's technically being within the group of the privileged.

Last I cheked I was in the top 5%. Personally I think that puts me in a privileged position that I very much appreciate. That appreciation includes being happy to pay tax, provided it helps to buffer ths dificulties faced by those who are less privileged, becaue they're the reason WE'RE not walking around knee deep in trash, the reason I can go out to enjoy a meal and be waited on, the reason I can go into a shop and have somone facilitate my purchases, the reason I don't have to take my own rubbish to the dump, the reason I work in a clean office, on the days when I work on site, the reason I can have somone else take care of my laundry and on and on. MY life would be less comfortable without them, they shouldnt have to scrape a living to facilitate MY comfort.

#1) I pay local taxes for Trash...it is not free and those persons do pretty well.
#2) Restaurants charge a lot and I leave a hefty tip to help the waitstaff. Well 20%.
#3) I shop online.
#4) We have a management company clean the office. We pay them well.
#5) We do our own laundry. Dry cleaning, no, but that helps another business.

So how much of my earned monies should I give to someone else because I worked hard and went to graduate school to achieve my level of "privelege and comfort"?

I know it isn't free, that's my point. I don't understand why people say we shouldn't pay for it, nor why those who do best from the system shouldn't pay more than those it doesn't serve so well.

If the federal tax rate were 10%, that would mean somebody making $30,000 would pay $3,000 in taxes. It would also mean that somebody making a million dollars pays $100,000 in taxes. Now that's on an equal tax rate which we don't have.

The point is no matter what the tax rate, the rich will always pay more than anybody else.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Explain "more out of the system"? I also lease two cars, so I am helping the manufacturers, dealers, etc. I pay RE tax. I pay excise tax. I have to pay for my kids education. That $250k and actually it is closer to $280k doesn't carry as much weight as you may think. To tax me at 40% is insanity? How am I priveleged? I didn't just stumble on these earnings, I had to fight and claw to attain them.

Privilege isn't a dirty word, it's what we all "fight and claw for". All I'm saying is for those who attain it, it makes sense that we pay back more into the system as we are getting more out of it, given it it serving us well. Incidently I'm in a higher tax bracket, I don't expect those on minimum wage to pay the same amount of tax I pay. In my book, any and all tax decreases should go to increasing the tax free levels, not lowering tax for higher earners. It's crazy that people who can't afford to cove their basic living expenses are handing over money to the govenment, while others are earning far more than they can spend in their lifetimes.

I've no truck with you getting $250k no truck if you get more, but it's not an insult to recognise you're in a privileged position.

Not in absolute dollars but why can they not pay a similar %? And I disagree that I am "privileged".

Incidently, to be in the top 5% earners you need to earn around $300k, to be in the top 10% you need to earn around $195k. That puts you approximately in the top 7% earners. I'd say that's technically being within the group of the privileged.

Last I cheked I was in the top 5%. Personally I think that puts me in a privileged position that I very much appreciate. That appreciation includes being happy to pay tax, provided it helps to buffer ths dificulties faced by those who are less privileged, becaue they're the reason WE'RE not walking around knee deep in trash, the reason I can go out to enjoy a meal and be waited on, the reason I can go into a shop and have somone facilitate my purchases, the reason I don't have to take my own rubbish to the dump, the reason I work in a clean office, on the days when I work on site, the reason I can have somone else take care of my laundry and on and on. MY life would be less comfortable without them, they shouldnt have to scrape a living to facilitate MY comfort.

#1) I pay local taxes for Trash...it is not free and those persons do pretty well.
#2) Restaurants charge a lot and I leave a hefty tip to help the waitstaff. Well 20%.
#3) I shop online.
#4) We have a management company clean the office. We pay them well.
#5) We do our own laundry. Dry cleaning, no, but that helps another business.

So how much of my earned monies should I give to someone else because I worked hard and went to graduate school to achieve my level of "privelege and comfort"?

I know it isn't free, that's my point. I don't understand why people say we shouldn't pay for it, nor why those who do best from the system shouldn't pay more than those it doesn't serve so well.

We should pay more in absolute dollars. If I earn 100, I should pay 25. If you earn 60 you should pay 15. We both pay the same % but I paid ~67% more than you did in terms of absolute dollars.