Yes, I'm a Conservative, But SOME Rent Control IS Necesary

[sartre play]

78 pages & the best we have come up with (and the probable reality) is that Protect will have to suck it up and move. and you just have to hope its not coming to your town soon. where there is more demand for housing than housing available rent will go up . still find it to be sad there are so many people living in comfort with no real danger of losing that sweet spot will still take advantage of the situation because they can, just for a few more unneeded dollars. yes it there legal right. myself would have a hard time sleeping at night knowing some child went with out lunch because I raised the rent just because I could. but do get it, I new all my renters as people not numbers on a ledger. we have lost touch with the thought of other people being neighbors.

 

[WinterBorn]

I understand the concepts quite clearly.

no, you don't.

Yes, I do. I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.

that is your story. you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.

But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.

not now.

Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"

 

[JWBooth]

78 pages & the best we have come up with (and the probable reality) is that Protect will have to suck it up and move. and you just have to hope its not coming to your town soon. where there is more demand for housing than housing available rent will go up . still find it to be sad there are so many people living in comfort with no real danger of losing that sweet spot will still take advantage of the situation because they can, just for a few more unneeded dollars. yes it there legal right. myself would have a hard time sleeping at night knowing some child went with out lunch because I raised the rent just because I could. but do get it, I new all my renters as people not numbers on a ledger. we have lost touch with the thought of other people being neighbors.

 

[danielpalos]

no, you don't.

Yes, I do. I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.

that is your story. you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.

But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.

not now.

Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"

didn't understand my simple answer? it covered every Thing.

Employment is at the will of either party. Capital Has to circulate in our First World economy. Applying for unemployment compensation is simpler than applying for means tested welfare. Capitalism works.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be the poorest a person can be in our economy.

Who is going to Want to be Poor, merely to be lazy?

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, I do. I understand that increasing taxes on employers does not help the economy.

that is your story. you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.

But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.

not now.

Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"

didn't understand my simple answer? it covered every Thing.

Employment is at the will of either party. Capital Has to circulate in our First World economy. Applying for unemployment compensation is simpler than applying for means tested welfare. Capitalism works.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be the poorest a person can be in our economy.

Who is going to Want to be Poor, merely to be lazy?

So, you want to change or eliminate everything I listed. Then what you want is welfare. And the means test is not expensive at all. It is merely a few forms you have to fill out.

Want an income for not working and without having to look for a job? Apply for welfare. That is what it is designed for.

And you extol the merits of simplicity, but what to completely overhaul the Unemployment Compensation system, from the criteria to qualify, the requirements while on it, the length of time you can draw it, to the source of the funding. That is certainly not simple.

And as for the means testing, you can be sure that is the Unemployment Compensation system were to be changed into what you want, there would be some sort of means testing.

If you want to help the poor, why do you dislike a simple filling out of forms to prevent greedy people from getting benefits when they can support themselves? Why do you want to allow people to take resources they don't need?

 

[danielpalos]

that is your story. you would understand, if you knew anything about economics.

a general tax is less intrusive than a direct tax.

But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.

not now.

Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"

didn't understand my simple answer? it covered every Thing.

Employment is at the will of either party. Capital Has to circulate in our First World economy. Applying for unemployment compensation is simpler than applying for means tested welfare. Capitalism works.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be the poorest a person can be in our economy.

Who is going to Want to be Poor, merely to be lazy?

So, you want to change or eliminate everything I listed. Then what you want is welfare. And the means test is not expensive at all. It is merely a few forms you have to fill out.

Want an income for not working and without having to look for a job? Apply for welfare. That is what it is designed for.

And you extol the merits of simplicity, but what to completely overhaul the Unemployment Compensation system, from the criteria to qualify, the requirements while on it, the length of time you can draw it, to the source of the funding. That is certainly not simple.

And as for the means testing, you can be sure that is the Unemployment Compensation system were to be changed into what you want, there would be some sort of means testing.

If you want to help the poor, why do you dislike a simple filling out of forms to prevent greedy people from getting benefits when they can support themselves? Why do you want to allow people to take resources they don't need?

you don't understand the concepts, or the market based reality of capitalism.

 

[WinterBorn]

But Unemployment Compensation is not funded by a general tax.

not now.

Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"

didn't understand my simple answer? it covered every Thing.

Employment is at the will of either party. Capital Has to circulate in our First World economy. Applying for unemployment compensation is simpler than applying for means tested welfare. Capitalism works.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be the poorest a person can be in our economy.

Who is going to Want to be Poor, merely to be lazy?

So, you want to change or eliminate everything I listed. Then what you want is welfare. And the means test is not expensive at all. It is merely a few forms you have to fill out.

Want an income for not working and without having to look for a job? Apply for welfare. That is what it is designed for.

And you extol the merits of simplicity, but what to completely overhaul the Unemployment Compensation system, from the criteria to qualify, the requirements while on it, the length of time you can draw it, to the source of the funding. That is certainly not simple.

And as for the means testing, you can be sure that is the Unemployment Compensation system were to be changed into what you want, there would be some sort of means testing.

If you want to help the poor, why do you dislike a simple filling out of forms to prevent greedy people from getting benefits when they can support themselves? Why do you want to allow people to take resources they don't need?

you don't understand the concepts, or the market based reality of capitalism.

I understand the concepts quite well. You keep saying that I do not understand, but do not provide any actual details of what I have said that is wrong.

Why do you want to avoid a means test? If someone is going to get a check from the tax payers, shouldn't they be required to swear that they do not have the means to support themselves? That is the extent of the means testing for welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

not now.

Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"

didn't understand my simple answer? it covered every Thing.

Employment is at the will of either party. Capital Has to circulate in our First World economy. Applying for unemployment compensation is simpler than applying for means tested welfare. Capitalism works.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be the poorest a person can be in our economy.

Who is going to Want to be Poor, merely to be lazy?

So, you want to change or eliminate everything I listed. Then what you want is welfare. And the means test is not expensive at all. It is merely a few forms you have to fill out.

Want an income for not working and without having to look for a job? Apply for welfare. That is what it is designed for.

And you extol the merits of simplicity, but what to completely overhaul the Unemployment Compensation system, from the criteria to qualify, the requirements while on it, the length of time you can draw it, to the source of the funding. That is certainly not simple.

And as for the means testing, you can be sure that is the Unemployment Compensation system were to be changed into what you want, there would be some sort of means testing.

If you want to help the poor, why do you dislike a simple filling out of forms to prevent greedy people from getting benefits when they can support themselves? Why do you want to allow people to take resources they don't need?

you don't understand the concepts, or the market based reality of capitalism.

I understand the concepts quite well. You keep saying that I do not understand, but do not provide any actual details of what I have said that is wrong.

Why do you want to avoid a means test? If someone is going to get a check from the tax payers, shouldn't they be required to swear that they do not have the means to support themselves? That is the extent of the means testing for welfare.

to avoid duplication of services.

 

[WinterBorn]

Which takes me back to the question I asked.

"1) You are unemployed through no fault of your own (you didn't quit and you weren't fired for cause)
2) You are actively seeking employment
3) You can only draw unemployment for a maximum of 73 weeks
4) You must send a report to the Unemployment office every week listing your attempts to find a job
5) Your compensation check comes from additional payroll taxes paid by your previous employer


Which of these would you change or eliminate?"

didn't understand my simple answer? it covered every Thing.

Employment is at the will of either party. Capital Has to circulate in our First World economy. Applying for unemployment compensation is simpler than applying for means tested welfare. Capitalism works.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed should be the poorest a person can be in our economy.

Who is going to Want to be Poor, merely to be lazy?

So, you want to change or eliminate everything I listed. Then what you want is welfare. And the means test is not expensive at all. It is merely a few forms you have to fill out.

Want an income for not working and without having to look for a job? Apply for welfare. That is what it is designed for.

And you extol the merits of simplicity, but what to completely overhaul the Unemployment Compensation system, from the criteria to qualify, the requirements while on it, the length of time you can draw it, to the source of the funding. That is certainly not simple.

And as for the means testing, you can be sure that is the Unemployment Compensation system were to be changed into what you want, there would be some sort of means testing.

If you want to help the poor, why do you dislike a simple filling out of forms to prevent greedy people from getting benefits when they can support themselves? Why do you want to allow people to take resources they don't need?

you don't understand the concepts, or the market based reality of capitalism.

I understand the concepts quite well. You keep saying that I do not understand, but do not provide any actual details of what I have said that is wrong.

Why do you want to avoid a means test? If someone is going to get a check from the tax payers, shouldn't they be required to swear that they do not have the means to support themselves? That is the extent of the means testing for welfare.

to avoid duplication of services.

LMAO!!! But what you want is to create a duplication of services. You want to turn the Unemployment Compensation system into another welfare system.

And why? What is the only reason you have given? To avoid having to fill out a couple of forms concerning your income, net worth, and assets.

 

[danielpalos]

that is your Story, story teller.

Compensation for the market based phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what i am advocating solving for through the simple and existing mechanism of unemployment compensation.

 

[WinterBorn]

that is your Story, story teller.

Compensation for the market based phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what i am advocating solving for through the simple and existing mechanism of unemployment compensation.

All to avoid means testing.

 

[danielpalos]

that is your Story, story teller.

Compensation for the market based phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what i am advocating solving for through the simple and existing mechanism of unemployment compensation.

All to avoid means testing.

it should be as simple as possible under capitalism with our market based economy.

Capitalism works, so we don't have to.

With compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job?

The right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage.

 

[WinterBorn]

that is your Story, story teller.

Compensation for the market based phenomena of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is what i am advocating solving for through the simple and existing mechanism of unemployment compensation.

All to avoid means testing.

it should be as simple as possible under capitalism with our market based economy.

Capitalism works, so we don't have to.

With compensation for capitalism's natural rate of unemployment at the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job?

The right wing prefers to use capitalism to punish rather than encourage.

Use capitalism to punish who? Someone who quits their job? Someone who is fired for cause? In both those cases it is the employee who is at fault.

It IS as simple as possible. Welfare and Unemployment Compensation are two different programs with 2 different goals and missions.

You want to make Unemployment Compensation like welfare but without means testing. Why are you against the means testing used by the welfare system? It is only a couple of forms filled out by the applicant.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

 

[depotoo]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

You haven’t a clue when it comes to economics. You only know what you have been fed, which is based on fantasy only.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

You haven’t a clue when it comes to economics. You only know what you have been fed, which is based on fantasy only.

nice story, bro.

how about a valid, economic rebuttal.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

You haven’t a clue when it comes to economics. You only know what you have been fed, which is based on fantasy only.

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing.

The housing sector should be more stable for market participants. That can Only happen if markets receive metrics from that market participation.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30k per year, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That is $15k abovewhat they pay in taxes now. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. It does not cover the bureaucracy involved in having 158+ million people on welfare.

And the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

 

[WinterBorn]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

You haven’t a clue when it comes to economics. You only know what you have been fed, which is based on fantasy only.

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing.

The housing sector should be more stable for market participants. That can Only happen if markets receive metrics from that market participation.

If every working person making over $30k a year has to pay an additional $15k in taxes, above what they already pay, the economy would be in shambles.

 

[danielpalos]

You have to understand the concepts. Politics is all talk. It makes some on the left, grateful for our doctrine of separation of powers.

How would any person renting housing be worse off if every market participant has recourse to an income of the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, minimum; in our market based economy?

Promoting the general welfare is what we should be doing at every capital opportunity for our market based economy.

So you want to give every poor and unemployed person almost $30,000 a year, and they don't have to do anything at all for it? And you don't even want to require that they fill out a form showing they cannot support themselves? That is not promoting general welfare. That is socialism.

And what about those who are working and make less than $30k a year? YOu want the unemployed to make more? Of course those workers would quit their jobs. Right now about half the workers in the US make less than $30k a year. If you paid all of them the equivalent of $14, assuming a 40 hour week, it would cost the tax payers $2,303,199,604,160.00. How does that promote the general welfare?

The population breakdown I found was for 2010. At that time, there were just over 308 million people in the US. To pay the 158 million people $30, the remaining 150 million people would have to pay just over $15k every year, just to cover your plan. That does not cover all the other gov't expenses. It is just to cover your new Unemployment Compensation. So the guy making $40k a year is actually ending up making less than the guy doing nothing.

dear, it is about Capitalism, not the subjective value of morals.

who would Want to be Poor, if all they need do is get a job that pays more.