That one messed up bit should be “Here’s a nice long piece about David Cay Johnston’s Perfectly Legal…”
No, it’s not.
Stealing refers to taking something which legally belongs to another.
This is not stealing.
How about regulating pay discrepancies between managers and employees? How about a multi-tier minimum wage based on age and education?
I consider myself pretty progressive and I agree with John. Protectionism in the form of outsourcing penalties and a hard-line minimum/living wage is a path to huge economic problems. Unfettered free trade isn’t the answer either - it should be an incentive to developing countries - but that seems to be another topic of discussion.
But that’s been the way since the invention of money. And it seems to me that the taxation system - at least here in the U.K. - is set up to make it more difficult to become rich. Take me for an example: I’ve already talked about my fuel bill, but consider that I’m a single batchelor, and I’m paying for social services that I don’t use and are essentially a black hole, an education system that I don’t use (and am unlikely to ever use), a state health service that’s another black hole and bad enough that I pay for private health insurance, etc, etc. I’m essentially the class of taxpayer that pays for everyone else. Once I have sufficient funds and contacts, I’m out of here.
Most new products and companies fail. In fact, I recall an experiment a few years ago where a chimp did as good a job picking stocks as an analyst. I came to the conclusion many years ago that the people at the top don’t know what they are doing. Sometimes they get lucky and claim to have suceeded due to skill/geius; sometimes they fail and blame a subordinate/the government/illegal aliens/whatever - I believe it’s almost all luck, however.
Actually it is; I recall various studies showing that most Republican supporters think that Bush and other Republican leaders hold far different political positions than they do, and are simply wrong about many matters of objective fact. Such as thinking Saddam was behind 9-11.
That pretty much sums up my attitude . . . except I haven’t mellowed.
Stealing is also a moral concept, not just a legal one. Legal ownership and rightful ownership aren’t necessarily the same thing. The mere fact that you are legally able to acqure something does not necessarily mean that you are morally entitled to do so.
Uh huh… yeah.
Do you believe that most Americans favor the sorts of solutions that are being tossed around in this thread? If these things are so attractive to the average American, why aren’t prominent politicans pushing for them?
Why, in other words, doe the Left feel the need to hide its true colors when seeking support from the average American?
Yes, I suppose that’s so.
But at least the legal side of the concept has specifics that we can look to to get an objective answer to whether a given act is theft.
The “moral” side is awash in ambiguity. I reject the suggestion that workers have some sort of moral claim on the profits earned through their increased productivity. You obviously think it’s a great claim. But since you and I don’t agree on a common authority to resolve moral claims, surely you can see how this discussion will end: me saying, “No, they don’t!” and you saying, “Yes, they sure do!”
You can make up any sort of moral standard you wish. I don’t buy it.
In which post did I say that? Can you quote the specific wording of mine that led you to imply that that is my view? There are many ways to amass wealth, some of them legal and honest, some of them not.
How about it? If there are loopholes that need to be closed, close them. We might argue about some of the details, but I suspect you and I would largely agree on that matter.
That’s such a vague accusation, I don’t even know how to respond? Who specifically is supporting which tax proposals and what makes them regressive? (Hint: making something less progressive does not turn it into a regressive system.)
SS was designed by the left, my friend. Or have you forgetten? One can certainly argue that sales taxes are regressive to a large degree, but out federal income tax system cannot honestly be called regressive.
As I said, close the loopholes if they in fact exist. But pardon me if I don’t trust the Daily Kos to accurately sumarize in one sentence the gist of that PDF document that looked to be about 100 pages to me.
Look, we’re always going to have rich people. The problem we’re trying to address is why wages seem stangant. Closing a bunch of tax loopholes and such are generally good ideas but won’t do one thing to help poor, unskilled workers who are struggling to compete in the world economy. So let’s drop the class warfare nonsense and try and solve the actual problem at hand.
What specific proposal do you have to address the issues raised in the OP?
They do as far as raising the minimum wage is concerned And the Dems can’t pass laws alone when they don’t have a majority. As far as why don’t Republicans support it? It’d be pure speculation. Maybe you could give us a hint, since 75% of Americans support the raises.
And as far as other solutions are concerned - how do we know if no one’s covering the middle ground in the media or with surveys (take regulating exec/managment pay in relation to employee pay for instance)?
Well, now that you mention it, I noticed with great pleasure over the last week or two that Dem politicians on TV have been hammering the Pubbies for their “abandonment of the middle class.” While the Dems have not been extremely forthcoming about how they’d address that abandonment, I’m pretty sure it would involve incentives for companies that increase the size of the middle class labor force and the keep wages at or above market value.
I’m also all in favor of cutting back on the regulatory burden for small businesses and allowing the grow into large businesses more easily, so long as it is not at the cost of worker health or safety.
Also disincentives for companies and persons that avoid their tax burden by using loopholes in international financial regs, as detailed in “Perfectly Legal” already cited by Hentor,would be an EXCELLENT idea. Why let them get away with paying no taxes when Joe Sixpack loses a quarter to a third of his income before he sees it?
And that’s just for starters. Yes, there are all sorts of all American things we can do to help the middle class, and we oughtta do them.
What you may be missing is that issues don’t exist all by themselves. As a gross oversimplification, let’s look at two candidates:
Candidate A: Supports raising the MW and also supports legal abortion
Candidate B: Supports keeping the MW as is and oppposes legal abortion.
Which candidate is the pro-life, pro-Higher-MW voter going to vote for and why?
Issues do exist all by themselves. Whether or not a candidate is willing to represent wishes of his/her constituency in the face of their personally held ideals is another question.
Actually, yeah.
A previous thread on the subject (two guesses as to why I remember the issue!):
Survey: Large numbers of Bush supporters don’t know his position on issues
The link in my original OP is no longer valid. Go here instead (look under Foreign Policy Making Process - it’s the third study date September 29, 2004).
OK, so should candidate A take the pro-life position and oppose legal abortion? That way the voter would have a candidate who reflected his position. Is that what you’re saying?
What do you call backdating options?
No. I’m saying that if 3/4 - 4/5ths of their constituency support some type of legislation, it should be a no brainer for them to also support it.
Also, you’re just highlighting the issues existing by themselves. In your example they’re voting on 1 issue and 1 issue only. A signle issue - by itself.
I call it completel irrelavent to the topic in the OP: what needs to be done to raise the wages of low skilled workers? I suppose we could close the income gap by preventing people from becoming rich, but that’s not the same as raising the wages of poor people.
Great point. As someone who works at a company whose CEO was recently castigated for monstrous earnings (second highest earnings in 2005), I find his compensation hard to argue against.
At least in this particular instance, the person’s income was augmented by $150 million in stock sales. IMHO, if a CEO can deliver absurd returns, he deserves absurd remuneration.
Being one of those “middle class”, I don’t feel stolen from. My wife and I make a good living, wesave and *invest *, and consider ourselves insulated from anything short of a massive meltdown.
If outsourcing is going to make my stock rise, then (and yes, it’s selfish) I’m pleased. At a certain point, you have to look out for your family and self.
And don’t get started on Unions…IMHO, they’re indirectly responsible for the rash of outsourcing.
-Cem
Not sure how to debate the moral side…but I can address the labor portion of costs in my industry (lumber manufacturing, which I’ve been in for over twenty years)…it generally is productivity per worker than has increased signficantly, largely through technology. There are far fewer lumber mills than there were twenty or thirty years ago, mills have fewer employees, yet overall production is up. By and large staying in business has required making sounder investments in assets than the competition, to not only reduce labor costs but generally to more efficiently use raw materials.
I would bet most other industries have a similar history.
The notion that a chimp with money could do well investing in a general business setting (not the stock market) is ludicrous. A chimp could pick stocks as well or better that the pros is because the stock market provides an obvious mechanic to manage return/risk ratios without having to have any knowledge at all about what you are investing in. This is simply not true in business. Businesses fail more often than not, irrespective of whether they are run by chimps. Sure, luck is a signficant factor, suggesting it is the main one is usually done by people who have never run a business. They usually fail because the competition has managed to do a better job identifying and serving the market, much of which is not luck.
Not sure whether the minimum wage increase will matter much in a global economy, we are already losing the wage battle overseas at the lower end of the scale, am guessing that it will probably just move the dollars around (not much) at WalMart and McDonalds…most of our lower paying jobs are well over the minimum.
Yes, CEO pay at public companies is way out of line, I’d support an excess pay tax for companies at some level.
It is true the tax system encourages investment, maybe this ‘games the system’ in favor of us non-chimps who might do some investing and risk taking to grow business or even just maintain market share…but until you find more chimps who have both the money to spread around and willingness to share according to someone elses’ moral standards, not sure what a better alternative is.