You misunderstand the concept. Social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour, according to one estimate. It is the reason for a minimum wage at fifteen dollars an hour; for opportunity cost purposes. capitalism is only useless to the right. It is simply a rational choice for Labor. - - - Updated - - - It is irrelevant if less efficient Firms have to consolidate, simply for the greater glory of Capitalism. At least they got some profit, being "cannon fodder".
dan does not read english well so he does not know that the right supports capitalism while the left does not.
in fact the top 1% pay 44% of all Federal income taxes and in NY and CA they pay 50% of state taxes. This is a horrible waste. We are stealing the nations most productive capital and giving it to libturd govt to waste on welfare entitlements
this is obviously true. Modern corporations are hugely complex. It takes decades to learn how even a tiny part of one of them works.
dear, adult conversations still requires adults. you are welcome to understand that the left is learning how to merely, use capitalism for all of its (capital) worth in modern times.
balancing the budget would be two fold 1. reduce overseas war expenses (nation buildign overseas) 2. tax people making over 250k the same % per dollar earned as people making under 250k and make sure labored income is not taxed more, I prefer a flat tax for all income .
That is key to controlling government spending. Wage inflation results in price inflation which in turn results in government aid programs costing more per person, with more persons becoming dependent on them.
Wages outpacing inflation and running massive federal and State budget surpluses, solves that simple dilemma.
the rich are the job creators so the poorer taxpayers must provide them with the luxury of taking risks without consequences, in order to better their lives with future good employment prospects. any tax proposal that deviates from this to balance a budget, is going against the principles of free market enterprise or capitalism.
They should take risks with their own money, not with depositors money. Banks should be legally prohibited from lending out or otherwise investing depositors' funds. They should be legally required to keep depositors' funds on deposit. If they want to make loans or investments, let them use their own money, so if they make a bad investment only their money is lost, not the depositors. Additionally, this would eliminate the need for banking regulations and the FDIC.
You may be missing the concept. The minimum wage amount is not, the right's usual and customary, arbitrary and capricious, politics. It has to do with rational choice theory under Any form of Capitalism on our plane of existence. The cost of social services has been claimed to be around fourteen dollars an hour. A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage competes favorably with the cost of social services. It really should be that simple for Labor as the least wealthy in our republic. The least wealthy cannot afford to hire entire departments to help them conform to rational choice theory, or fill out corporate welfare forms in triplicate, as the case may be.
Addressing this item by item. By definition the "median wage" is the boundary between what the highest 50% of earners are paid and what the lowest 50% of earners are paid. It's always been that way and 50% of the people always earn less than the median wage and 50% always earn more than the median wage. Increasing the "minimum wage" does not affect the "median wage" because all of those earning the "minimum wage" are already a part of the 50% not earning the median wage. Our education system is not improving and arguably getting worse due to a lack of funding and over-administration in schools and colleges. In the 1960's, for example, when I started college we paid an "administrative charge" based upon the number of credits and it was about $15-$20/credit as I recall. A full 16-credit class load cost about $300 although it was a long time ago when I went to college. We didn't pay any tuition for the actual classes we took. Just the administrative costs. Today the college student at the state college pays tuition and it runs thousands of dollars a semester. A lot of college students can't afford the cost of college today without student loans that drive them deep into debt. We can also note that prior to 1965 the states were responsible for fully funding K-12 and college education. In 1965 the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) and Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) were passed by the federal government and they introduced the first federal funding for K-12 and college education in the states. Since 1965 the states have been cutting taxes that fund education and/or re-allocating that funding to other state spending necessities to avoid raising taxes. This action by the states drove the necessity for even more federal funding to the state so that the basic costs of education could be met and even then, in some states like AZ an WA, the state still isn't providing enough state funding to education. If the states actually collected enough in taxes to fund the state schools then they wouldn't be collecting federal aid to education. Testing of student achievement has been showing a decline in primary subjects like math and science over that last several decades if I recall correctly. "Affordable Housing" is pretty much a myth because the costs of rent and home ownership has consistently increased, except for the mortgage collapse in 2008, and it's even recovered in virtually all real estate markets since 2008. Government rent subsidies and government housing don't represent "affordable housing" but instead are welfare programs because the housing isn't affordable. Yes, in some areas there have been significant improvements in public transportation but public transportation is only good if it gets you from your starting point and back in a convenient and timely manner and in the majority of cases it fails to do that. That's a primary reason why so many people don't use public transportation. "Better design of urban areas" is typically accomplished by evicting the (poor) people that live there and replacing them with other people that can afford the upgrades to the urban area. So where to the poor people go? I'm not sure what specific infrastructure is being referred to but we know that we have a serious problem across the board with decaying infrastructure because the funding is not being generated to fix it. Of course if the household had adequate income then the government wouldn't need to spend money on them providing welfare assistance which would free up hundreds of billions of dollars to spend on infrastructure projects.
The math actually establishes that a $4 trillion budget, equally divided by the roughly 306 million people living in the Unite States works out to about $13,000 per person and if taxation was "apportioned" under Article I Section 8 that's how much each person would own (regardless of age) but we're not imposing "apportioned" taxation under the 16th Amendment. A problem is that about $1.5 trillion is Social Security/ Medicare expenditures that have a dedicated tax source (FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes) paid for by the workers and it's generated trillions in excess revenue since the 1980's, it has never required deficit spending, and hasn't contributed one dime to the national debt. Yes, it has a projected financial shortfall in the future but this is easily corrected by lifting the cap on the Social Security portion and imposing the taxation on all income regardless of source. Better still I have a privatization proposal based upon the "minimum wage" that increases benefits roughly 4-times, virtually eliminates the safety net, and completely eliminates Medicare. The only drawback is that the transitional period is 45 years (the working career of the person) and it costs about $40-$45 trillion (which it will cost to fund Social Security/Medicare over the next 45 years anyway). Unlike "Republican" privatization proposals that only work for higher income earners mine works for all workers. That leaves us with about $2.5 trillion in "general expenditures" that my tax proposal fully funds all general expenditures without having to impose any income taxes on those households earning at or below median income, it is inherently very progressive, and it lowers the tax rate significantly from the current top tax rate of 39.6%. As a final bonus it's so simple that the US Treasury could administer it eliminating the necessity for the IRS. You keep arguing against a tax proposal that meets fundamentally all of your requirements of funding government with the added bonus that no one would require a tax accountant or even income tax software. They could do their taxes in about 5 minutes.
I'm not fundamentally changing business deduction although arguably some of the special loophole deductions should be eliminate. Yes, ownership of a home is almost always advantageous to the person regardless of whether there's an itemized mortgage deduction or not but the mortgage deduction still exists in principle because it's arguably a component of the "Exemption" that every household receives. The "Exemption" provides for the necessary expenditures of "housing" which includes mortgage interest and principle payments as well as rent costs for the renter. It's just a broader means of providing for the costs of housing.
the rich are doing a favor for the middle class and poor by giving them the privilege of good jobs, and that involves taking risk. middle class taxpayers should have skin in the game, since they benefit from the rewards of those risks being taken by the rich. a good tax proposal would create a fiduciary responsibility of the middle class for the rich when there is no reward, so that the rich are not held liable for the natural disasters of free market capitalism. this would free up capital to invest in creating jobs, as Donald Trump says will balance the budget by creating more revenue from the newly employed.
Okay, but what does that have to do with banks loaning out depositors money rather than using their own money to loan and invest?
banks are the rich, and when they loan out depositors money to get richer that involves taking risk for reward. depositors are often middle class taxpayers, and banks create jobs for middle class taxpayers by giving out loans. if we can make it easier on the rich to create jobs, the newly employed taxpayers will balance the budget with more revenue which Donald Trump mentioned not too long ago.
They also are putting depositors' money at risk. If the depositors are okay with their money being put at risk then that's okay w/ me, as long as they understand what they are getting into, as long as they don't ask for government bailout if their bank screws up.
What do you mean by "good jobs"? We should be having a Jobs Booms with all of the tax breaks the wealthiest are getting for getting so rich, so much faster now.
well the way free banking works is that each bank id free to make loans according to a risk/return level. If one banks want to make risky loans that earn high interest and you want to deposit your money there you are free to. If you want more security then you are free to deposit in a bank that makes more secure less risky loans. Now you have a libsocialist monopoly and people deposit wherever thinking libsocialist govt has them protected. This lets a govt monopoly make the key banking decision, not millions of people acting freely with far greater wisdom.
A couple of errors. The vast majority of the money that banks lend out isn't from depositors. It's money they borrow from the Federal Reserve that creates the "money" based upon the loan to the bank. The wealthy don't create jobs. Consumption creates jobs. Additionally virtually all of the money invested by the wealthy is in secondary investments that don't even fund enterprise. Only direct investments in stocks issued by a corporation (i.e. primary investments) provide any funding to the corporation (not ensuring it's success that is dependent upon sales-consumption) and one month I reviewed SEC transactions. Of all the dollars transacted for the month less than 0.00005% were invested in stocks being issued by corporations. Rounded off to 1/1000th of a percent the investment was ZERO dollars.
How the hell is the depositor supposed to know if the bank is making secure loans or risky loans? We would believe that a loan secured with real property (real estate) would be very safe but that didn't turn out very well during the mortgage loan collapse in 2008.
is it really that "wise" for the wealthiest to make so much money so fast, and not bother with a Jobs Boom for the rest of us?
I didn't mention any 'social services'? I mentioned items within infrastructure; housing, roads, bridges, transportation, and included education because we must become smarter. A person who earns $14/hour or $20/hour or $25/hour cannot afford housing in San Francisco or any major urban area! It is mandatory that we create 'affordable' housing within all areas. It's fine with me in the 'natural' process of business for companies to consolidate and/or close the doors. It's not fine with me when government and society FORCES something on business which forces consolidation and/or closing the doors...
It's a pipe dream but I wish all Americans were concerned about paying taxes and voting and wars. If we look at this issue from a 100,000 foot altitude, it is inconceivable that we can locate every eligible worker where a job exists, it is inconceivable that we can locate larger employers in rural areas, it is inconceivable to expect all potential workers to achieve higher education and skills, and we cannot change the dynamics of the bell curve which mandates people will fall between the lowest and highest positions on the curve. As population continues to grow, and more people are skewed towards lower education and skills, where does this lead us? Additionally, in our society, IMO, over the past 10-20 years, it seems politically incorrect to expect anyone to do anything they don't feel like doing, to fail those who fail, to demand any form of effort or accountability...all things considered too harsh. I'd say this attitude will do far more harm than it does good! The old idea of teaching a man to fish instead of giving them fish is politically incorrect today...
