Originally Posted by
The Final Dakar 
Another solid point. Here's another thought – Republicans only need to weather its implementation and, so long as they do not run on a platform to repeal it, it will fade into the background, no longer turning off younger more socially liberal conservatives. I wouldn't hold my breath, however.
First, they may not have to weather its implementation just yet, we'll see what the Supreme Court does in the near future. I maintain they can still oppose it without causing too much of a ruckus again, as long as they don't botch the message and appear hateful or unreasonable.
So how do you means test? What is your 'limit'. And what happens if out of compassionate, effective, and small, you can only have two?
Right now all we have is big. I'd like to try a different experiment.
(For example – drug testing welfare recipients? Sound hella reasonable to me. I believe Florida did this. Turns out the cost far outweighed the benefits, and the hit rate was lower than I imagine the cynics ever imagined. So drug testing turns out to be good on principle but awful in practice.)
I was never a huge fan of drug-testing citizens and the policy seemed more punitive than productive anyway. We've made laws and provisions available to the American public and I don't like this being used as a means of taking their blood periodically. Social Security and Medicare are essentially, the largest line items in our budget. You cannot facilitate the desired leftist environment without having a tax structure that looks like the models we witness abroad including the European or Swiss models in which the tax burden is shifted substantially to the
little guy as THE only reliable base of taxation due to their broader scope and larger numbers. The lowest brackets would see a 5% increase, the highest brackets would see a 7% cut along with the Corporate tax rate. We can either tax a whole lot more (on everyone) in broadening the base or take a different approach to the other side of the equation; spending. The needy aren't entitled, they're in need. A graduating reduction in the amount of benefits paid to upper-income people based on life-time earnings (not current income) would be less of an apparent disincentive to work and save while substantially reducing what is paid out in entitlements. This reserves resources for those who truly need it and encourages those with the means to save -- an incentive to save which comes in the form of investment portfolios and other vehicles that contribute to the economy.
Do we actually have a dearth of these people that positions are going unfilled? In an economy with 7.9% unemployment, I'm guessing no.
I disagree. Google;
Management positions available. There's a bunch of 'em. I can't tell you how many times I've spoken to associates about an available management position only to hear them respond with; "I'm not interested in being anyone's babysitter". Too often, people do not want the burden of accounting for other people and their issues. When it's 5:00pm, they don't want to attend a manager's meeting, they want to go home. Perfectly understandable, but it comes at a cost.
The point was that anyone who complains about taxes while in those rarer positions is taking their increased disposable income for granted. Doubly so, given the rise in income inequality. Triply so, since they're likely smart enough to realize that as your pay increases so does your responsibility both professionally and economically.
Taking their increased disposable income for granted? How so? They're working for it. I think it's just the opposite. I think the government is taking our revenue for granted. Ever heard anyone complain about the taxation on their over-time alone? Should they feel good that their sweat-equity is going into studies on jello wrestling and shrimp treadmills? The increased responsibility professionally and economically makes them more keenly aware of what they're doing to earn that greater amount of money. If working more and assuming more responsibility doesn't give you a say -- well then you'll never have one.
Here's where I become a paradox –
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/bu...h-quarter.html
So if we cut spending we'll hurt the fragile economy. Fantastic. And we can't raise taxes across the board because that too will hurt the economy. So what the hell are we supposed to do?
Simplify the tax code, cut regulations that only create monoliths by destroying smaller competitors, regime change, and repeal of Obamacare for starters. The economy will simply not get better with Obama in office. Trust me. There's just no faith in the purveyors of our economy.
Employees on the average,
waste more than two hours of each day and are actually productive approximately 80% of the time. Companies have determined that they can actually get their money's worth out of each full-time employee by shaking the tree in job-cuts and getting disengaged employees back to their desks. Besides, many of these same folks are updating their FB profiles at their desk, cheating their time-sheets, and taking paper out of the printer for home-use anyway; it's not like you're hurting any more good people than you are good businesses right? I mean... this is the kind of We/They small-ball nonsense that can be played all day long.
Proof.
The True Myth of the 8-Hour Workday
According to the findings, people spend an hour and 14 minutes each work week on social networks, 34 minutes on games and another 27 minutes on personal email.
Study shows 79% of employees steal from their employer
Our study disclosed that employees readily admitted to stealing office supplies, falsifying expense reports, taking inventory and almost 87% of those surveyed admitted to falsifying time sheets because they regularly stole time from their employers and was paid for hours they did not work. Those surveyed also indicated that these practices are increasing at an alarming rate. Previous studies have revealed that the price tag on employee theft in this country today is over $120 billion a year. In fact, employee theft is the cause for one out of every three business failures in this country today.
Hyperbolic to be sure, but I am incredulous. You're complaining about taxes on bonuses. Who even gets bonuses? Especially excluding Wall Street and its bonuses that aren't bonuses. Let me reiterate my point in a different manner.
Who gets bonuses?
Code:
--Min-------Midpoint-----Max--------Midpoint STI-----STI Prevalence
$20,000----$25,000----$30,000---------2%--------------61%
$24,000----$30,000----$36,000---------3%--------------69%
$28,000----$35,000----$42,000---------4%--------------66%
$32,000----$40,000----$48,000---------5%--------------69%
$36,000----$45,000----$54,000---------5%--------------70%
$40,000----$50,000----$60,000---------5%--------------70%
$44,000----$55,000----$66,000---------5%--------------72%
$48,000----$60,000----$72,000---------5%--------------74%
$52,000----$65,000----$78,000---------5%--------------76%
$56,000----$70,000----$84,000---------6%--------------78%
$60,000----$75,000----$90,000---------8%--------------79%
$64,000----$80,000----$96,000---------10%-------------82%
$68,000----$85,000----$102,000--------10%-------------84%
$72,000----$90,000----$108,000--------10%-------------86%
$76,000----$95,000----$114,000--------10%-------------88%
$80,000----$100,000---$120,000--------12%-------------90%
$84,000----$105,000---$126,000--------14%-------------91%
$88,000----$110,000---$132,000--------15%-------------92%
$92,000----$115,000---$138,000--------15%-------------93%
$96,000----$120,000---$144,000--------18%-------------94%
$100,000---$125,000---$150,000--------20%-------------95%
$104,000---$130,000---$156,000--------20%-------------96%
STI - Short term Income (bonuses) About 61% of those earning between $20k-$30k, 69% of those earning between $24k-$36k, etc including just about every sales job I've ever heard of. Take 2% of $30k for example; considering the average annual raise is approximately 2.9%, that single $600 bonus can equate to a rather large share of the percentage increase they'll receive for the entire year.
The complaint is the the rich pay an unfair portion of the taxes (particularly compared to decades ago). My underlying point is, the portion of total income taxes they pay increased because the portion of total income they get also increased (i.e., their 'problem' is a direct result of their success – Or their greed, depending on how you think increased income the cause of income equality is).
Actually, the complaint I keep hearing is that the rich aren't paying their fair share when in fact the upper quintile incomes are paying up to a 25% higher rate. Folks have yet to define what "fair" is. Fair in Switzerland is about 5% higher on the lowest quintile incomes and 10% lower for the upper quintile incomes. The Corporate rate is generally about 10% lower as well; all schemes that would be demagogued by the left in the US as feeding on the poor.
This past recession is a perfect example:
To Obama: Inequality Is Worse Than You Think - Bloomberg
Holy *****ing shit!
So the rich are getting richer while the rest are actually getting poorer. And go ahead and click on the research link. You'll see that even when the average american was getting insane gains in the 90s (20%!) The top were literally
doubling their income grabbing almost half the growth. Let me repeat that:
During the Clinton Boom, the Top 1% captured almost half the growth in income. It only got worse the past decade.
During the .com boom under Clinton, the average Joe saw a huge leap in their incomes, but were managing businesses that in most cases didn't require employees. Perhaps the problem is the remainder of people expressed their greed in different ways such as several gaming systems, several cars, gadgets, cable, stealing, etc while collecting bennies and unemployment from the government. By global standards, you're a cigar-chomping fat cat who earns his money on the backs of poor people in Uganda. Again, small-ball classism.
And I'm supposed to believe taxes on bonuses is the problem?
No. You were supposed to acknowledge that it's a shame a company that wants its employees to get a $1500 bonus must pay out $2700. The above takeaway is exhibit A of why there's gridlock in Washington right now.
I've not once worked for a company that wasn't interested in "growing the business". Surpluses in profit generally go back into growing the business. This generally means more employees. Why? Because they're just as greedy as you and I are. The only thing that retards this otherwise natural human behavior is government distorting the market through a host of failed monetary policies that equate to an exponential growth in outlays as the number of children born into poverty and wealth disparity increase.
Unless you can show me some measurable, psychological phenomena of increasing
greed; I'm going to assume there are other factors at play and that really -- everyone is greedy as hell including you.
Top