|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 176 responses total. |
twenex
|
|
response 132 of 176:
| 
Mar 17 00:00 UTC 2006 |
I wasn't claiming discrimination; just drawing attention to hypocrisy.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 133 of 176:
|
Mar 17 00:09 UTC 2006 |
Whose attention?
|
naftee
|
|
response 134 of 176:
|
Mar 17 00:43 UTC 2006 |
it's funny how the americans have to play catchup to the canadian minimum wage
(due to currency value increases), when it used to be the other way around.
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 176:
|
Mar 17 01:14 UTC 2006 |
re #127 nharmon said:
"Another thing. I do not feel that government's role is to
redistribute wealth. I believe it violates the lockean foundation that
our government was based on."
If the government does not play a role in this, who will? You think
the rich will re-distribute wealth on their own? Do you support a
PERMANENT division of the classes, where nobody can get rich but the
already rich, because there is nothing there to spur on any meaningful
redistribution of wealth?
I think someone who has $100 million has no need to ever have a dollar
more. If he has $200 million, what difference would it make to him or
his life? At some point, excess unneeded wealth must be redistributed.
Ask Bill Gates, who has given away many billions because he knows he
no longer needs to make any money. He *wants* his wealth re-
distributed.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 136 of 176:
|
Mar 17 01:23 UTC 2006 |
When I was a kid I had two bicycles because I took good care of them the
first lasted a long time. They stayed in the garage. One day this kid
broke into the garage (not really broke in, we lived in a neighborhood
where garages weren't locked all the time) and stole one of them.
The kid who took it justified that I didn't need TWO bikes, and he
didn't have ONE. Thus he fully believed that he was entitled to my
second bicycle. I've always thought that his attitude was due to his
immaturity, but perhaps I was mistaken. Maybe he was raised to believe that.
|
keesan
|
|
response 137 of 176:
|
Mar 17 01:57 UTC 2006 |
If someone making 21 million a year got taxed 90% on anything over 20 million,
how would it hurt them any or eliminate jobs? Obviously they are not working
1000 times as hard as someone making 20 thousand, rather thousands of other
people are working hard to make this one person rich, and ought to get
something back for it in the form of increased government services (or even
lower taxes on less-rich people). The super-rich could be taxed to pay for
national health care, which would help out a lot of businesses that are
currently having to outsource to avoid paying for health care for their
employees.
|
klg
|
|
response 138 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:14 UTC 2006 |
I would like to hear someone try to explain what this means:
"lower wage earners put more of their income back into the economy
than the rich"
Of course, sindi's opinion is bad. Why should the lazy sponge off the
industrious? That is, to say the least, immoral. I don't get up at 5
a.m. five days a week because I enjoy it. If someone else wants to
sleep until 10, that's fine with me - just don't ask me to support him
in his chosen life-style.
(Someone please tell our resident economist that historically tax
receipts go up when tax rates go down. It happens every time.)
Once again, RW fails to see the light - even when he shines it:
(1) Who else but the government will redistribute the wealth?
(2) Bill Gates voluntarily gives his money away.
Think, RW. Think.
And, NH, did that boy who took your bicycle keep it in good condition,
as you did? Or did it rust from neglect because he had not earned it?
|
keesan
|
|
response 139 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:18 UTC 2006 |
In recent history tax rates went way down and the deficit went way up, and
I don't see how someone making $20,000 a year is a lazy sponger working any
less hard than someone being paid 1000 times as much.
|
slynne
|
|
response 140 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:28 UTC 2006 |
A lot of people have the notion that the amount of money one earns is in
direct perportion to the effort they expend. Unfortunately, that isnt
often the case. I know a lot of people who earn a lot less money than I
do who work much harder. I know people who earn a lot more money than I
do with almost no effort whatsoever. Granted, I could more money than I
do now if I worked harder but no matter how hard I worked, I doubt I
could ever earn millions of dollars a year.
|
klg
|
|
response 141 of 176:
|
Mar 17 02:38 UTC 2006 |
Someone tell John Maynard Keynes here that an increase in the deficit
does not necessarily result from a drop in tax receipts. It can also
occur because of federal spending increases.
And ask why she's so jealous of someone who is successful? How many
home runs did she hit last year?
And the peasant in Darfur are jealous of the guy who earns $1,000 a
year. So what good does being jealous do? In school did you cheat by
taking answers from people smarter than you? Each person should just do
his best to earn what he wants and be satisfied with whatever he
achieves instead of measuring his worth by what others earn. And if you
think that money can really buy you happiness, that is a real shame.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 142 of 176:
|
Mar 17 03:17 UTC 2006 |
Wow, even by your low standards, your last two posts are larded with BS.
Why don't you tell us all the difference between JFK's tax cuts and our
current chimp's tax cuts? You seem to have accidently on purpose left out
a real important fact in order to bolster your weak argument for tax cuts.
|
keesan
|
|
response 143 of 176:
|
Mar 17 03:23 UTC 2006 |
I would rather live in a world where people worked at jobs they enjoyed and
were good at, doing things that benefited other people, having been properly
trained (free education), rather than doing what made the most money (legal
or not).
|
klg
|
|
response 144 of 176:
|
Mar 17 03:37 UTC 2006 |
Good excuse. (By the way, nothing is "free." You really mean that you
just want someone else to earn them money to buy it for you.)
All together now, Kumbaya.
|
bru
|
|
response 145 of 176:
|
Mar 17 03:53 UTC 2006 |
interesting. I can really see the discrepancies in pay where I currently
work. We all do the same job, but some of us make more than the other guy.
on the low end, we have one guy making 6.50 an hour. I on the other hand am
making much more than that. So the boss gives him the OT, and I am not
complaining even though I am not making the OT I was promised. on the other
hand, one of my co workers has been there for several years, and she works
80 hours a week. So she is probably getting paid more per hour than I am,
and gettting 40 hours of OT in top of that.
Yet she does no more than the rest of us, why is dhe getting all the OT?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 146 of 176:
|
Mar 17 06:18 UTC 2006 |
re144: hey kerry, whyncha answer cyklone's question.
are you a coward?
|
twenex
|
|
response 147 of 176:
|
Mar 17 09:43 UTC 2006 |
Re: #135.
Yes, Nate does think the rich will redistribute wealth on their own. Yes, it
does run counter to the teachings of history and yes, it would be funny if
it weren't so ridiculous.
Re: #136. Taxes aren't stealing. If nobody paid taxes, how exactly would one
pay for defence?
Re: #143. Yes, but you're an idealist.
|
scholar
|
|
response 148 of 176:
|
Mar 17 10:20 UTC 2006 |
WHOEVER CREATED YOUR MOTHER"S VAGINA WASN"T ONE< AHAHAH< MAN IS THAT THING
EVER SMELLY
|
twenex
|
|
response 149 of 176:
|
Mar 17 12:02 UTC 2006 |
You're a blithering idiot.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 150 of 176:
|
Mar 17 12:25 UTC 2006 |
The world that Sindi is describing has been seen on this planet. Except,
those worlds had some very ugly sides to them. Slavery comes to mind.
This is because if everyone works leisurely, somebody else has to kick
it in the dick to make up for that in order to keep the standard of
living up. Of course, we might all be able to live like Sindi (not that
there is anything wrong with how Sindi lives), but a lot of people want
better than that.
Re #147: I don't believe the rich will redistribute their wealth. Which
post did you get that idea from? The rich hold onto their money, which
is why I agree that a progressive income tax is necessary. As for taxes
being stealing, I believe that when our government takes taxes for the
purpose of wealth redistribution, that is theft. It violates the lockean
principles that government's role is to protect life, liberty, and
property. This does not include providing such things (hence the whole
gurantee of the pursuit of happiness and not happiness itself).
Taxes are necessary to the point necessary for our government to function.
This all goes back to the idea of entitlement people have in regards to
other people's money. You are not entitled to benefit from my hard work.
If I want to share the spoils, that is my choice. You don't get to force
my choice.
|
twenex
|
|
response 151 of 176:
|
Mar 17 13:07 UTC 2006 |
Too many contradictions to bother pulling apart.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 152 of 176:
|
Mar 17 13:58 UTC 2006 |
Nate, do you honestly believe the over-paid CEO is working 1000 times harder
than someone on the factory floor or in R&D?
|
jep
|
|
response 153 of 176:
|
Mar 17 14:14 UTC 2006 |
Regarding my teenage stepdaughter having a job next summer: I don't
understand the questions. Why *wouldn't* she have a summer job when
she will be 16 years old? Yes, she will be saving for college. She'll
be driving by then and helping to pay for her car. And she'll be
building skills which will get her through her life, like showing up to
work on time and doing a good job, and even applying for work (and
being turned down by people before she gets one.) Unless she's either
physically incapable or has some important educational goals to
accomplish, of *course* she will have a job.
I certainly expect she will have a job this summer, but the minimum
wage doesn't go up until October, so I directed my attention into the
future a year.
|
jep
|
|
response 154 of 176:
|
Mar 17 14:44 UTC 2006 |
It's not up to me to decide if CEOs and professional athletes are worth
1000 times as much money as I get. They can get someone to pay them
that much. I cannot. I could not do their jobs even if I were paid
the money they get.
It's not up to me to decide if I'm worth 3 times as much money as my
wife gets. I know she works a lot harder than I do. She's a janitor.
Almost anyone could do her job. I'm in software support, with 20 years
of specialized skills. There are few who can do my job.
This is America. If you don't like what you're doing, or how much you
are making, you can at least try to get into something else. Americans
watch 20+ hours of TV per week on the average. There are a lot of
people in despair over their lifestyles who could be using their time a
lot more wisely than they are.
My wife is in a nursing program. A year ago, she was working full
time, raising 3 kids on her own, and taking classes at night. It was
tough, but she decided it wasn't as tough as being a janitor for the
rest of her life. Due to timing of certificate programs in our area,
it will be another year before she can complete her program and become
a nurse. But when she does, she'll have improved her life. It can be
done.
And -- this is important -- there's no other way out of the financial
cellar. Increasing the minimum wage will not get very many people out
of poverty. It won't allow anyone to buy a home or send their kids to
college.
I don't mind the minimum wage going up, as I said yesterday. It may
provide a little financial relief for some people who desperately need
it. I am for that, but it's just not going to help very many people
very much, or for very long.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 155 of 176:
|
Mar 17 15:52 UTC 2006 |
John, out of curiosity- what certification is she going for?
|
jep
|
|
response 156 of 176:
|
Mar 17 15:54 UTC 2006 |
I think it's CNE -- certified nurse. But I don't know much about the
different grades of nurses.
|