Should the United States go back to a top federal tax rate of 70%?

[Winston]

Your beliefs are funny. The rich are getting richer and wages for everyone else are stagnant. Sorry, but you are wrong. The rich sure have you duped.

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

You mean they mostly work with politicians to get monopolies and hose the consumer and worker. You live in the past Ray, that's just not how things work now. This isn't free market capitalism. Workers are hosed with non-competes and companies collude to hold down wages. Sad state of affairs.

Does Monopoly Power Explain Workers’ Stagnant Wages?
Apple and Google settle antitrust lawsuit over hiring collusion charges

What you say would be true in a free market capitalist economy, but that is not what we have. And you are a big supporter of corporate welfare so you should know it.

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

No, a free market is not free from rules or regulations. That is the myth they have been promoting. Adam Smith said a free market was a market free from RENTS, as in "rent seeking". The simple definition, rent seeking is when someone gets more of the pie that is already there instead of making more pie. It is attaining "profits" without providing additional benefits to society. When companies collude together instead of compete, by carving up markets or cooperating on price, they achieve rents.

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

When a drug manufacturer buys up the company that was going to make a generic version of their soon expiring patented medication and continue to charge the previous price they achieve "rents". Again, no government involvement at all.

 

[Winston]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

And as I have pointed out to you, when marginal tax rates on the wealthy were higher they carried less of the total tax burden. Funny that.

 

[Brain357]

Your beliefs are funny. The rich are getting richer and wages for everyone else are stagnant. Sorry, but you are wrong. The rich sure have you duped.

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

You mean they mostly work with politicians to get monopolies and hose the consumer and worker. You live in the past Ray, that's just not how things work now. This isn't free market capitalism. Workers are hosed with non-competes and companies collude to hold down wages. Sad state of affairs.

Does Monopoly Power Explain Workers’ Stagnant Wages?
Apple and Google settle antitrust lawsuit over hiring collusion charges

What you say would be true in a free market capitalist economy, but that is not what we have. And you are a big supporter of corporate welfare so you should know it.

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

 

[Brain357]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

And as I have pointed out to you, when marginal tax rates on the wealthy were higher they carried less of the total tax burden. Funny that.

Seems like what would happen when they collude and hoard all the wealth.

 

[Andylusion]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

You mean they mostly work with politicians to get monopolies and hose the consumer and worker. You live in the past Ray, that's just not how things work now. This isn't free market capitalism. Workers are hosed with non-competes and companies collude to hold down wages. Sad state of affairs.

Does Monopoly Power Explain Workers’ Stagnant Wages?
Apple and Google settle antitrust lawsuit over hiring collusion charges

What you say would be true in a free market capitalist economy, but that is not what we have. And you are a big supporter of corporate welfare so you should know it.

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

Actually that isn't entirely true.

The number of non-compete agreements I've had to sign, is about 2. And generally the problem is that companies pay money to have you trained, and then you jump ship and work for someone else.

Now if you can put yourself in the other person's shoes, you can kind of grasp why this would tick you off. You lose money on training someone, only to have them run off and work for a competitor.

Would you like to pay money to train the employee for the guy who is trying to put you out of business?

Again, just think about it. Of course that would suck. Of course you would want to have a non-compete agreement. Do you really want to train the people who are trying to run you out of business? No.

That however is far cry from saying you are preventing people from engaging in capitalism. Most non-compete agreements have a limited time frame. Even those with longer time frames, tend to not be enforced. Courts rarely enforce long-term non-competes.

Further, non-competes usually are only effective in a specific area. So for example if I sign a non-compete with a lawn company, and then I open my own company, as long as I open my company in another city they usually can't enforce a non-compete.

And sometimes you simply can't enforce a non-compete because there is no money in it. For example a locksmith had a trainee who quit and opened his own locksmiths business. There was nothing he could do to stop him. The amount of money he would spend suing, was greater than how much he could ever get from him, and that's assuming he won.

Lastly, there are many other ways to find a settlement with a non-compete that do not cause you to be shut down. You can make payments. Some give non-voting stock in their company, to the other party.

Non-competes are not on the same level as Unions which have a monopoly over the entire market, and you either pay your union dues or you can't be a welder.

 

[Brain357]

You mean they mostly work with politicians to get monopolies and hose the consumer and worker. You live in the past Ray, that's just not how things work now. This isn't free market capitalism. Workers are hosed with non-competes and companies collude to hold down wages. Sad state of affairs.

Does Monopoly Power Explain Workers’ Stagnant Wages?
Apple and Google settle antitrust lawsuit over hiring collusion charges

What you say would be true in a free market capitalist economy, but that is not what we have. And you are a big supporter of corporate welfare so you should know it.

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

Actually that isn't entirely true.

The number of non-compete agreements I've had to sign, is about 2. And generally the problem is that companies pay money to have you trained, and then you jump ship and work for someone else.

Now if you can put yourself in the other person's shoes, you can kind of grasp why this would tick you off. You lose money on training someone, only to have them run off and work for a competitor.

Would you like to pay money to train the employee for the guy who is trying to put you out of business?

Again, just think about it. Of course that would suck. Of course you would want to have a non-compete agreement. Do you really want to train the people who are trying to run you out of business? No.

That however is far cry from saying you are preventing people from engaging in capitalism. Most non-compete agreements have a limited time frame. Even those with longer time frames, tend to not be enforced. Courts rarely enforce long-term non-competes.

Further, non-competes usually are only effective in a specific area. So for example if I sign a non-compete with a lawn company, and then I open my own company, as long as I open my company in another city they usually can't enforce a non-compete.

And sometimes you simply can't enforce a non-compete because there is no money in it. For example a locksmith had a trainee who quit and opened his own locksmiths business. There was nothing he could do to stop him. The amount of money he would spend suing, was greater than how much he could ever get from him, and that's assuming he won.

Lastly, there are many other ways to find a settlement with a non-compete that do not cause you to be shut down. You can make payments. Some give non-voting stock in their company, to the other party.

Non-competes are not on the same level as Unions which have a monopoly over the entire market, and you either pay your union dues or you can't be a welder.

The employees should be there because they are happy with their job and wages. Not because they were forced to sign a paper when they took their job. People don't jump ship when they are happy. The employee wins when they can put their services on the market and get raises. Non competes make it so you can't get hired by the people who would value your skills the most. Non competes are not good capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

And as I have pointed out to you, when marginal tax rates on the wealthy were higher they carried less of the total tax burden. Funny that.

Seems like what would happen when they collude and hoard all the wealth.

When you jump up the tax rate, the wealthy move more of their wealth into tax havens. The harder you try and pin them down, the less and less you will get from them.

As for "collude and hoard all the wealth".... that is ridiculous. In a free market capitalist system, it is not possible to collude and hoard all the wealth. Again, 80% of wealthy in this country, are first generation rich. According to this theory that is impossible. How could they be first generation rich, if all the wealthy people were colluding and hoarding the wealth?

Wealth is not static. You can't just keep in a bottle for all eternity. It is either being created, or destroyed. It is in constant flux.

In a socialist system, where government controls the economy, then it is possible to collude and hoard wealth. The state owned companies in China are a perfect example. They shut out any new people from competing with the state owned companies.... which is why the super wealthy and elite in China, were those connected to the communist party, and no one else ever got rich under their system.

When they liberalized, and switched to Capitalism, suddenly they have a massive group of new wealthy people. People who started businesses, created companies, and now the state owned companies are minority of the economy. The rich and wealthy connected to the communists, are now a minority in the country.

Because people created wealth. They didn't get it from the elites connected to government. They created new wealth, which is why China has grown so quickly.

 

[Andylusion]

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

Actually that isn't entirely true.

The number of non-compete agreements I've had to sign, is about 2. And generally the problem is that companies pay money to have you trained, and then you jump ship and work for someone else.

Now if you can put yourself in the other person's shoes, you can kind of grasp why this would tick you off. You lose money on training someone, only to have them run off and work for a competitor.

Would you like to pay money to train the employee for the guy who is trying to put you out of business?

Again, just think about it. Of course that would suck. Of course you would want to have a non-compete agreement. Do you really want to train the people who are trying to run you out of business? No.

That however is far cry from saying you are preventing people from engaging in capitalism. Most non-compete agreements have a limited time frame. Even those with longer time frames, tend to not be enforced. Courts rarely enforce long-term non-competes.

Further, non-competes usually are only effective in a specific area. So for example if I sign a non-compete with a lawn company, and then I open my own company, as long as I open my company in another city they usually can't enforce a non-compete.

And sometimes you simply can't enforce a non-compete because there is no money in it. For example a locksmith had a trainee who quit and opened his own locksmiths business. There was nothing he could do to stop him. The amount of money he would spend suing, was greater than how much he could ever get from him, and that's assuming he won.

Lastly, there are many other ways to find a settlement with a non-compete that do not cause you to be shut down. You can make payments. Some give non-voting stock in their company, to the other party.

Non-competes are not on the same level as Unions which have a monopoly over the entire market, and you either pay your union dues or you can't be a welder.

The employees should be there because they are happy with their job and wages. Not because they were forced to sign a paper when they took their job. People don't jump ship when they are happy. The employee wins when they can put their services on the market and get raises. Non competes make it so you can't get hired by the people who would value your skills the most. Non competes are not good capitalism.

Then don't sign a non-compete. Don't take the job. Go someplace else and work.

If you are saying the employee is getting nothing from the employer, then they already have the skills, and should "put their services on the market and get a raise", right? You don't have to get a job with a non-compete to do that.

Again... the problem is when you get a job, and they train you, and then you immediately jump ship and work for a competitor.

Again.... you yourself would have a fit, if someone did that to you, and started hurting your business. You would be the first to support the idea of a non-compete if you were the one being harmed by an ex-employee that you trained at your expense, who then harmed your business.

And you are lying if you say otherwise. Honestly, don't even try. You are just lying to me, if you claim you wouldn't.

 

[Winston]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

And as I have pointed out to you, when marginal tax rates on the wealthy were higher they carried less of the total tax burden. Funny that.

Seems like what would happen when they collude and hoard all the wealth.

When you jump up the tax rate, the wealthy move more of their wealth into tax havens. The harder you try and pin them down, the less and less you will get from them.

As for "collude and hoard all the wealth".... that is ridiculous. In a free market capitalist system, it is not possible to collude and hoard all the wealth. Again, 80% of wealthy in this country, are first generation rich. According to this theory that is impossible. How could they be first generation rich, if all the wealthy people were colluding and hoarding the wealth?

Wealth is not static. You can't just keep in a bottle for all eternity. It is either being created, or destroyed. It is in constant flux.

In a socialist system, where government controls the economy, then it is possible to collude and hoard wealth. The state owned companies in China are a perfect example. They shut out any new people from competing with the state owned companies.... which is why the super wealthy and elite in China, were those connected to the communist party, and no one else ever got rich under their system.

When they liberalized, and switched to Capitalism, suddenly they have a massive group of new wealthy people. People who started businesses, created companies, and now the state owned companies are minority of the economy. The rich and wealthy connected to the communists, are now a minority in the country.

Because people created wealth. They didn't get it from the elites connected to government. They created new wealth, which is why China has grown so quickly.

No, when you increase the marginal tax rate on the wealthy they don't pour all their money into tax havens. But even if they do, those tax havens are often times job creators. Just a couple miles from my house, at the slopes of a mountain, lies Hawks Ridge Nursery. It was created as a "tax haven", a tax writeoff for the wealthy landowner. Now it is one of the country's largest supplier of shrubs and ornamental flowers. If the tax rate was lower the owner never would have created that business.

Why do you think the rich lobbied Congress to lower their taxes? Because they wanted to work harder and generate more business? Because they wanted to take more risk? Hell no, it is because they wanted to work less and get more money. They wanted to take less risk and get higher returns. I mean this ain't rocket science.

Here is the deal. The rich have come to enjoy a certain standard of living. No different than Joe Sixpack. What does Joe Sixpack do when he encounters a new expense that eats into his standard of living? He fawking takes a second job. So if we increase the tax rate on the wealthy, in order for them to enjoy their same standard of living, they will have to go out and take more risk, they will have to create more jobs. Do you really thing they are going to pick up their toys and go home? What, make no damn money just to spite the government? It is comical the way people have been trained by the elites.

And no, 80% of the Forbes 400 did not start with nothing. As Jim Hightowers says, most of them were born on third base and think they hit a triple.

REPORT: Forbes 400 Misleads About Wealth and Opportunity in the U.S.

 

[Brain357]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

I don't begrudge anyone making any mount of money.
If a Hedge fund Chief routinely makes a $1 Billion a year (the top 20 do on avg).. Good for him.
He's worth it to the investors in the Fund.

But what's he worth to the country?
That's society's/the GOVT's job to parse.

Is he worth as much as or more than 20,000 Math teachers (at 50k) who taught him his trade, and teach millions more every year?
NO.
He doesn't create a product or impart any great knowledge.. he buys low/sells high already extant cos stocks.
So I have No Problem with society/the Govt setting a much higher Tax rate for him than for others.

Warren Buffett, who only bought cos, doesn't know what to do with his money/$80 Bil..
So he's giving 90% of it to the Bill Gates Foundation.
Bill Gates is giving 90% of his fortune to his Foundation too...
Where it will be spend in the Third World improving health and welfare.
(And Gates would have still gone into his garage and created software no matter the Top tax rate)

I'd rather have Taxed that money more heavily and kept it IN the country by Income or Estate Taxes, and the economy would be better off for it getting spent here than piling up in .1%'s pockets.
`

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

And as I have pointed out to you, when marginal tax rates on the wealthy were higher they carried less of the total tax burden. Funny that.

Seems like what would happen when they collude and hoard all the wealth.

When you jump up the tax rate, the wealthy move more of their wealth into tax havens. The harder you try and pin them down, the less and less you will get from them.

As for "collude and hoard all the wealth".... that is ridiculous. In a free market capitalist system, it is not possible to collude and hoard all the wealth. Again, 80% of wealthy in this country, are first generation rich. According to this theory that is impossible. How could they be first generation rich, if all the wealthy people were colluding and hoarding the wealth?

Wealth is not static. You can't just keep in a bottle for all eternity. It is either being created, or destroyed. It is in constant flux.

In a socialist system, where government controls the economy, then it is possible to collude and hoard wealth. The state owned companies in China are a perfect example. They shut out any new people from competing with the state owned companies.... which is why the super wealthy and elite in China, were those connected to the communist party, and no one else ever got rich under their system.

When they liberalized, and switched to Capitalism, suddenly they have a massive group of new wealthy people. People who started businesses, created companies, and now the state owned companies are minority of the economy. The rich and wealthy connected to the communists, are now a minority in the country.

Because people created wealth. They didn't get it from the elites connected to government. They created new wealth, which is why China has grown so quickly.

We don't have a free market capitalist system. That is the point. We have monopolies and corporatism. We have wage collusion. We have corporate welfare like Foxconn. What we have is not good capitalism.

 

[Brain357]

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

Actually that isn't entirely true.

The number of non-compete agreements I've had to sign, is about 2. And generally the problem is that companies pay money to have you trained, and then you jump ship and work for someone else.

Now if you can put yourself in the other person's shoes, you can kind of grasp why this would tick you off. You lose money on training someone, only to have them run off and work for a competitor.

Would you like to pay money to train the employee for the guy who is trying to put you out of business?

Again, just think about it. Of course that would suck. Of course you would want to have a non-compete agreement. Do you really want to train the people who are trying to run you out of business? No.

That however is far cry from saying you are preventing people from engaging in capitalism. Most non-compete agreements have a limited time frame. Even those with longer time frames, tend to not be enforced. Courts rarely enforce long-term non-competes.

Further, non-competes usually are only effective in a specific area. So for example if I sign a non-compete with a lawn company, and then I open my own company, as long as I open my company in another city they usually can't enforce a non-compete.

And sometimes you simply can't enforce a non-compete because there is no money in it. For example a locksmith had a trainee who quit and opened his own locksmiths business. There was nothing he could do to stop him. The amount of money he would spend suing, was greater than how much he could ever get from him, and that's assuming he won.

Lastly, there are many other ways to find a settlement with a non-compete that do not cause you to be shut down. You can make payments. Some give non-voting stock in their company, to the other party.

Non-competes are not on the same level as Unions which have a monopoly over the entire market, and you either pay your union dues or you can't be a welder.

The employees should be there because they are happy with their job and wages. Not because they were forced to sign a paper when they took their job. People don't jump ship when they are happy. The employee wins when they can put their services on the market and get raises. Non competes make it so you can't get hired by the people who would value your skills the most. Non competes are not good capitalism.

Then don't sign a non-compete. Don't take the job. Go someplace else and work.

If you are saying the employee is getting nothing from the employer, then they already have the skills, and should "put their services on the market and get a raise", right? You don't have to get a job with a non-compete to do that.

Again... the problem is when you get a job, and they train you, and then you immediately jump ship and work for a competitor.

Again.... you yourself would have a fit, if someone did that to you, and started hurting your business. You would be the first to support the idea of a non-compete if you were the one being harmed by an ex-employee that you trained at your expense, who then harmed your business.

And you are lying if you say otherwise. Honestly, don't even try. You are just lying to me, if you claim you wouldn't.

That can't be done as too many corps require a non compete now. What world are you living in? Nobody jumps ship if they are paid and treated well. Non competes are not capitalism. You sure know your anti capitalism propaganda.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What's funny about my beliefs? How do the rich get that way? Many of them produce products or services we all use and need to some degree.

Walter E Williams had the best take on this. He said when he was teaching college, his students often asked him what the key was to financial success? To that he said, it's simple: please your fellow man. That's the key.

You may make a great hamburger and get hired to cater cookouts. You please your fellow man by a dozen or so. If you decide to open your own restaurant, you please your fellow many by the thousands. If you decide to franchise your burgers, you please your fellow man by the millions. In each step, financial rewards follow.

You may be very talented at writing and singing songs, so you sing and play your songs at parties, and please your fellow many by the dozens. You then decide to hit the bar scene, and you please your fellow man by the thousands. A recording agent hears about your talent, and you get a recording contract, from there, you are playing arenas and stadiums across the country and please your fellow man by the millions. Again, each step of the way gives you financial rewards.

Yes, you can inherit money, hit the lottery, win a huge lawsuit or something, but most of our wealthy didn't get their money that way. So nobody has me duped on anything.

You mean they mostly work with politicians to get monopolies and hose the consumer and worker. You live in the past Ray, that's just not how things work now. This isn't free market capitalism. Workers are hosed with non-competes and companies collude to hold down wages. Sad state of affairs.

Does Monopoly Power Explain Workers’ Stagnant Wages?
Apple and Google settle antitrust lawsuit over hiring collusion charges

What you say would be true in a free market capitalist economy, but that is not what we have. And you are a big supporter of corporate welfare so you should know it.

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

It is an option. No employer can make you do anything. It's decided as a condition of the job. If you don't want to sign any agreement, then take a job with another company.

In our company my employer promotes from within. We move our straight truck drivers into tractor-trailers instead of hiring outsiders. It gives my employer an advantage because our straight truck drivers already know the system, our customers, and already familiar with the places they will be going. He sends those drivers out with one of our tractor-trailer drivers for training after hours and on Saturdays. When the straight truck driver has enough experience, he and our tractor-trailer driver goes to the DMV for the test.

After they are licensed they continue doing the same job they always have. We use them as spares for when we take time off for illness or vacations, so they continue making the same money unless they are driving the tractor-trailer.

My employer makes them sign a three year contract in exchange for the training and licensing. After that three years, they are free to work for anybody they want including our competitors. Now if my employer didn't do that, they could use the license to start driving a tractor-trailer with another company right away, and the time my employer invested paying the trainer, the fuel, the wear and tear on the vehicle would be all for nothing. We wouldn't have a backup driver and the newly licensed driver would be making more money somewhere else, plus we would lose an employee at the same time.

My employer only offers this opportunity and it's not mandated. It's purely optional. If you decline the offer, no hard feelings. You keep your job, continue doing what you always did. No harm done.

 

[Brain357]

You mean they mostly work with politicians to get monopolies and hose the consumer and worker. You live in the past Ray, that's just not how things work now. This isn't free market capitalism. Workers are hosed with non-competes and companies collude to hold down wages. Sad state of affairs.

Does Monopoly Power Explain Workers’ Stagnant Wages?
Apple and Google settle antitrust lawsuit over hiring collusion charges

What you say would be true in a free market capitalist economy, but that is not what we have. And you are a big supporter of corporate welfare so you should know it.

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

It is an option. No employer can make you do anything. It's decided as a condition of the job. If you don't want to sign any agreement, then take a job with another company.

In our company my employer promotes from within. We move our straight truck drivers into tractor-trailers instead of hiring outsiders. It gives my employer an advantage because our straight truck drivers already know the system, our customers, and already familiar with the places they will be going. He sends those drivers out with one of our tractor-trailer drivers for training after hours and on Saturdays. When the straight truck driver has enough experience, he and our tractor-trailer driver goes to the DMV for the test.

After they are licensed they continue doing the same job they always have. We use them as spares for when we take time off for illness or vacations, so they continue making the same money unless they are driving the tractor-trailer.

My employer makes them sign a three year contract in exchange for the training and licensing. After that three years, they are free to work for anybody they want including our competitors. Now if my employer didn't do that, they could use the license to start driving a tractor-trailer with another company right away, and the time my employer paid the trainer, the fuel, the wear and tear on the vehicle would be all for nothing. We wouldn't have a backup driver and the newly licensed driver would be making more money somewhere else, plus we would lose an employee at the same time.

My employer only offers this opportunity and it's not mandated. It's purely optional. If you decline the offer, no hard feelings. You keep your job, continue doing what you always did. No harm done.

Yes but when they all require it you either work or don't. They are not capitalism. Do you understand the importance of competition in capitalism?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Take two gas stations operating side by side. If they work together and charge the same price, let's say that is $2.25 a gallon, and if they were competing the price would be $2.09 a gallon, then the "rents" would be fourteen cents a gallon. They are not operating in a "free market", they are colluding. And no government involvement at all.

Gas stations on the same corner usually are the same price, but it has nothing to do with collusion. Today, gas stations don't make money on gas, they make money on the store products they sell. The gas is to draw convenience customers into the store. While buying gas, they grab a coffee, a couple of doughnuts, maybe a pack of cigarettes and so on. Those items are priced for competition.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And by corporate welfare you mean what, letting them keep more of the money they made?

Your worth to an employer is determined by how much it would cost him to replace you. That's it.

If you have a job for $15.00 per hour, demand a raise and are refused, you leave the company. Now if your employer can't find anybody to do the same quality of work as you for $15.00 an hour, and has to increase his offer, you were underpaid. If he can replace you for the same wage, your worth was just about right. If he can find somebody to do the job for $13.00 an hour, you were overpaid.

Oh, but those evil companies. Don't they understand people have families to feed? That's not their problem, that's your problem. If you don't make enough money, then you do something to make your labor more valuable.

No I mean deals like Foxconn where corps and government come together to give the company 4.1 billion in tax payer dollars. Not free market capitalism.

Except when the corps have monopolies and collusion on their side. Did you bother to read my links? Employees are forced to sign non-competes which are completely against free market capitalism.

So your claims would be true with free market capitalism, but not what we have. You live in a fairy tale it seems.

It's not a free market capitalistic society, it's a regulated capitalist society. A free market means no rules or regulation.

It's not uncommon for employees to sign a contract that says they can't go work for a competitor for X amount of years. You agree to that when you first join the company. It's an option. It's quite common in big business right down to beauty salons where you must work outside X amount of miles from your previous employer. That's to insure you're not taking customers from that place of business when you leave. In some business positions, you develop a personal relationship with a customer along with a professional one.

It's not an option, the employer makes you do it. And these make it so essentially you can't take advantage of the benefits of capitalism.

So you see your beliefs are only true in your fairy tale land.

It is an option. No employer can make you do anything. It's decided as a condition of the job. If you don't want to sign any agreement, then take a job with another company.

In our company my employer promotes from within. We move our straight truck drivers into tractor-trailers instead of hiring outsiders. It gives my employer an advantage because our straight truck drivers already know the system, our customers, and already familiar with the places they will be going. He sends those drivers out with one of our tractor-trailer drivers for training after hours and on Saturdays. When the straight truck driver has enough experience, he and our tractor-trailer driver goes to the DMV for the test.

After they are licensed they continue doing the same job they always have. We use them as spares for when we take time off for illness or vacations, so they continue making the same money unless they are driving the tractor-trailer.

My employer makes them sign a three year contract in exchange for the training and licensing. After that three years, they are free to work for anybody they want including our competitors. Now if my employer didn't do that, they could use the license to start driving a tractor-trailer with another company right away, and the time my employer paid the trainer, the fuel, the wear and tear on the vehicle would be all for nothing. We wouldn't have a backup driver and the newly licensed driver would be making more money somewhere else, plus we would lose an employee at the same time.

My employer only offers this opportunity and it's not mandated. It's purely optional. If you decline the offer, no hard feelings. You keep your job, continue doing what you always did. No harm done.

Yes but when they all require it you either work or don't. They are not capitalism. Do you understand the importance of competition in capitalism?

Most places don't do that, so it's not a matter of not being able to work for anybody. You can always find plenty of places with non-conditional employment.

It's the same way unions used to operate before Right-To-Work became a new law in some states. If you wanted to work at company X, you had to join the union. If you didn't want to join the union, they couldn't offer you the job. You simply went to work someplace else if that was a problem with you. But if you wanted that job at company X, the condition was you had to join the union and stay there.

 

[abu afak]

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

NO.
You are putting words in my mouth to maintain your numb nuts Political position.
I'm saying WE the people, through our Govt, have decided that Progressive Income Taxes are the best way to pay for needed functions.
and that they may need to be more Progressive to make sure we still have a Middle Class.
A Middle Class is what made/makes America the great country it is, and that is in good deal a result of Progessive income taxes.

If you want purely "fair", such as a flat tax, some people will end up with all the marbles, and we'll then have a 'Serf-and-Castle' system.
(or what TR saw at the turn of the Century when the Carnegies, Morgans, Mellons, ran everything. So He instituted an income tax on Just the TOP .1%)
so get yo gardening tools BOY, you and Yo relatives will be growing my food, trimming my lawn, and feeding My livestock.
BOY.

Understand low IQ guy with a blinded Partisan view??
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How much lower would growth have been if Obama hadn't hiked rates?

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher, because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

A higher top federal tax rate is coming whether you like it or not. The Rich are wealthier than they have ever been and there are massive budget pressures that are only going to get worse with time. The majority of voters are moving gradually to support this. It conflicts with traditional Republican orthodoxy/ideology but the number of registered Republicans is declining. Plus even among Republicans, there are those, like myself, who realize that tax policy is about maximizing revenue collection while maintaining peak economic growth. Its not about what you THINK is FAIR for an individual to be paying or not paying at a certain income level. Its not about some obscure principle. Its about sound government policy that produces the best results for the entire country.

It would not have been any lower, but it would not have been any higher

Wow! That's one magic tax hike.

because typically tax cuts on the rich do not boost economic growth.

Right, because no one changes their behavior based on tax rates. LOL!

Its been shown that the rich don't change their spending when it comes to tax cuts or tax increases. But people in the lower class and middle class are heavily effected by tax cuts and tax increases which is why any tax cut should be targeting only them and not the rich.

Its been shown that the rich don't change their spending when it comes to tax cuts or tax increases.

I don't believe you.
If they don't spend it, they must eat it.

But people in the lower class and middle class are heavily effected by tax cuts

We should increase the percentage of people who pay zero taxes?
To how much? 60%? 70%?
Maybe only the top 10% should pay taxes?

Again, the goal is tax rates that produce maximum revenue to the government without hurting economic growth. We can increase the top federal tax rate to 60% or 70% without economic growth and we should because it will bring in a lot more revenue to the government that can be spent on the military and help balance the budget.

About 44% effectively don't pay federal taxes at the moment. An increase in that number, while increases the top federal rate would likely be very good for the economy and the government. To what level I'm not exactly sure, but certainly moving to 50% not paying a federal tax with that burden being shifted to the top 1% of income earners would work great for the economy and the country.

We can increase the top federal tax rate to 60% or 70% without [hurting] economic growth

You're lying.

and we should because it will bring in a lot more revenue to the government

You're lying again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did the Bush cut help over the next 8 quarters?

GDP growth improved during that time but was not sustained beyond that. Overall the last 24 quarters of Bush Presidency with that top federal cut in the tax rates saw an average quarterly GDP growth rate of 2.11%. This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President. So it appears to have not done a damn thing except make the budget deficit worse than it had to be.

Had 100% of the Bush tax cuts been targeted at people making less than $100,000 dollars a year either through cutting federal income taxes or cutting pay role taxes for those that don't make enough to pay federal income tax, then you might have seen some healthy GDP growth more in line with the 1990s. But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending. Consumer spending is what drives GDP growth.

This is much lower than the average of 3.62% when Clinton was President.

Yes, Internet Bubbles are cool!

But unfortunately, most of the Bush tax cuts went to the rich who don't increase their consumer spending.

You have any proof for that claim?

The proof is in the lower GDP numbers + the facts of what the rich do with their extra money. The rich don't eat out more or buy more products, it just goes into savings. The middle class and lower class on the other hand immediately spend the extra money. Consumer Spending is 70% to 80% of what drives GDP growth.

None of the top federal rate tax cuts since the year 2000 have helped GDP growth. Average GDP growth since the year 2000 has been an anemic 1.9% overall.

The proof is in the lower GDP numbers

Did the 2003 tax cut cause the crash 5 years later?

None of the top federal rate tax cuts since the year 2000 have helped GDP growth.

If only you had proof. Tell you what, let's count all the quarters with 7% real GDP growth
after the Bush tax cut and compare that to the number with 7% after the Obama tax hike.

The average GDP growth rate after Bush's tax cuts is less than the average GDP growth rate after Obama's tax hikes. That is all the proof you need to show that raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt the economy nor does lowering the top federal tax rate help the economy.

The average GDP growth rate after Bush's tax cuts is less than the average GDP growth rate after Obama's tax hikes.

Only because the real estate bubble collapsed in 2008.
Did it collapse because Bush cut taxes in 2003?

That is all the proof you need to show that raising the top federal tax rate does not hurt the economy nor does lowering the top federal tax rate help the economy.

You're lying.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then what you are saying is that government can spend your money better than you can. It's not governments business what you do with your money provided it's legal.

Now I've asked this before but never got an answer. So perhaps you can help: The top 20% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected taxes. The top 1% pay 40% of all collected income taxes. How much more should they be paying for the rest of us if 40% or 70% is not enough?

"How much is YOUR fair share of what somebody else worked for?"
Thomas Sowell

NO.
You are putting words in my mouth to maintain your numb nuts Political position.
I'm saying WE the people, through our Govt, have decided that Progressive Income Taxes are the best way to pay for needed functions.
and that they may need to be more Progressive to make sure we still have a Middle Class.
A Middle Class is what made/makes America the great country it is, and that is in good deal a result of Progessive income taxes.

If you want purely "fair", such as a flat tax, some people will end up with all the marbles, and we'll then have a 'Serf-and-Castle' system
so get yo gardening tools BOY, you and Yo relatives will be growing my food, trimming my lawn, and feeding My livestock.
BOY.

Understand low IQ guy with a blinded Partisan view??
`

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

 

[abu afak]

Well if you're going to get insulting, discuss this with somebody else. I don't put up with that shit. But before you go, I'll have you know that taking more from anybody doesn't produce a middle-class. Never has and never will. It's a leftist myth that when somebody has too much, that's the reason others have too little. And enriching the government doesn't help you or I one bit. Take half of the money from rich people today, it won't help your plight tomorrow. You will still make the same money, still have the same bills because money is not finite in this country. You can make as much as you want, and it doesn't matter if we have a thousand billionaires or one.

It worked throughout the last Century.
(only started failing after Reagan's flattening the Tax curve)

And there is a Bell Curve of both Intelliegence/knack for making money.
The bottom 1/4, or even 1/2, cannot survive a "Fair", Flat, or mere Sales Tax, as they are regressive and you'll get
Bernie Sanders and AOC faster than you can say ****.
They are already almost there.
`