Ah, ah, ah! apples and oranges sirBy your same argument you could say that in the early 30s the Nazi or Communist systems were working just fine.
much wealth that goes to the rich is not introduced back into the economy, for various reasons. do realize that income above a certain bracket is not taxed as much. essentially they get a break.My problem with the Progressive tax system is that it punishes those who pay the most money into our Budget, the rich.
No sane poor person would rather stay in low income with lower taxes than gain more income with higher taxes. If i'm rich, it doesn't matter if i'm taxed 33, 50, or even 66 percent, I'm still retaining a SHITLOAD of wealth that probably won't be introduced into the economy in any shape or form. not to mention the many ways i can store my money offshore (thx to bush) and not worry about it getting taxed.And that the poor are left saying "I can have 15% taxation now, or 25% taxation later. I would rather stay where I am now" no matter how many holes are in there logic.
Actually, i don't agree. Wages have not kept up with inflation, and furthermore, prices have not kept in synch, despite record profits from corporations despite regulations. Corporations are getting richer, wages are getting smaller, and prices are rising.How so? It allows the corporations to earn more money, and in turn pay their employees more money, and charge less for products. Which are then bought more, which then gives the corporation more money, causing an ever repeating cycle.
ok, since i'm not familiar with with what the MTA is the background behind the company, i cant say much about that caseI'd like to point out a recent hapenstance in NYC. The MTA workers complained that they were getting less money then they should of, and demanded an obscene raise percentage. Yet a bank teller who works more hours, has a more hectic job, and doesn't have union benefits was being payed more then a booth clerk. That's just downright unfair, and wrong. Unions might have once been helpful, but now they are extortionate and need to be monitored and regulated if not gotten rid of all together.
but, look at how walmart uses threats and strongarm tactics to eleminate unions, and you'll see that management and corporate are the big tough bullies in town, not some random union
no, because i'm not making the assumption that the poor dude was even lazy in the first place. that's something most libertarians do (broad brushing? i think not)Basically what your saying is that "he might be lazy, but look at him he is even lazier!"
Bullshit. They prolly dod nothing but inherit the position through connections and power, not work. This of course is an assumption, but we know how bidness works.The thing is CEOs DID something. In order to make it big in this country you have to do something really big.
CEOs get the biggest tax breaks, and corporations are famous for not paying their taxes whenever possibly. Whatever they did to get where they are doesn't justify the shit they pull on a day to day basis.Finally CEOs contribute to Taxes, and companies pay your wages, and your decent pay (if you have it)
IMO we still have problems with minorities being discriminated against, and, frankly, claiming a shitload of unqualified black people (or any others) are taking over the jobs is ridiculous. From my anecdotal (allow me to be use a fallacy this one time please!) experience, i've never seen a situation where a company was desperate to hire some unqualified black guy (or lady) because they had to meet a quota. There's obviously consideration behind the hiring process.Not so. We have made such progress since then that I don't think we could go backwards. I just don't want people having to hire a black person who is an inferior (No offense meant) worker in that field when they could hire a worker of a different ethnicity to do the same job much better.
But consider that the reason these laws are there in the first place is because of rampant discrimination, and many observe the same discrimination occurring across the country, especially in the south.
Explain what is so 'free' about a market where the consumer has little to no power to protect himself from predatory market forces. An unregulated 'free' market is saturated with corruption, and is corrupt even now because regulations are not enforced, among other reasons.Explain please.
What is so free about a market that allows large telecommunication companies to eat up smaller companies and mutate into huge conglomerates that control and censor information, that squash other companies, and lower standards?
What is so good about a market that serves only the CEOs and the shareholders and holds no regard for human beings? In the past, corporations had to abide and state an oath that said they operated for public benefit. No longer.
There is no regulation power held by the consumer, as I explained previously. That's why regulatory powers need to be held by the gov't. Before the complaints of that forcing corps to raise prices (which isn't true; the shareholders and CEOs could take in less cash for the benefit of the consumer, but that won't happen) realize that corporations will raise prices and cut wages despite economical or market forces.
Above all, I think the philisophy of the unregulated market is in direct opposition to secular humanism, which has the objective goal of putting humanity's sake first. Faith in the market as shown by many libertarians is purely subjective, and must be reinforced by economic buzzwords used to justify the predatory actions of the market.
I'm not a communist by any means, but a purely capitalist, unregulated economic system is a disaster.
sorry for the longish post
and fuck you lennox
