Capitalism will save this world


Tecumsehsbones
#3061
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

The top 1% includes most government employees in the Western world. What does this tell you?

That may be true in Canada, but certainly not in the U.S.

The only employee of the Federal government whose government pay is top 1% is, arguably, the President. Not senators, not Supreme Court justices.

I think this is maybe more of a whine than a fact.
 
taxslave
+1
#3062
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

That may be true in Canada, but certainly not in the U.S.
The only employee of the Federal government whose government pay is top 1% is, arguably, the President. Not senators, not Supreme Court justices.
I think this is maybe more of a whine than a fact.

We have a Sunshine list. All the government employees at all levels that make over $100 000. A few years ago the little city down the line that would be the equivalent of a county seat(pop90 000) had s1x people just in their fire department making in excess of $100 000.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3063
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

We have a Sunshine list. All the government employees at all levels that make over $100 000. A few years ago the little city down the line that would be the equivalent of a county seat(pop90 000) had s1x people just in their fire department making in excess of $100 000.

"Across the country, you were in the top 1 per cent of all earners in 2015 if your employment income was at least $225,409."

-- Globe and Mail

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle36383159/

So, kids, is $100,000 MORE than $225,409, or is $100,000 LESS than $225,409?
 
taxslave
+1
#3064
Statscan says $234 700 puts you in top 1%. The CAO of our Regional District earned $293 000 last year.
 
taxslave
+1
#3065
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

"Across the country, you were in the top 1 per cent of all earners in 2015 if your employment income was at least $225,409."
-- Globe and Mail
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle36383159/
So, kids, is $100,000 MORE than $225,409, or is $100,000 LESS than $225,409?

Is %293 000 higher than $225409? Or is math too hard for you?
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3066
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Is %293 000 higher than $225409? Or is math too hard for you?

OK, that's one.

One.

Here's what you posted earlier:

"The top 1% includes most government employees in the Western world. What does this tell you?"

If one is "most government employees" where you are, that means you got a total of two. Go ahead and pay 'em a million each, it won't make a dent in the budget.

You overplayed your hand because you're a butthurt whiner. I called your bluff. You're sitting on a busted flush. Take your licking like a man.

Or I guess you could concoct some retarded whimper like "I wasn't speaking literally. They still make too much money!"
 
Walter
+2
#3067
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Prog shit. It’s the Progs who are rioting and the progs who gave us the Wuflu.
 
taxslave
+2
#3068
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

OK, that's one.
One.
Here's what you posted earlier:
"The top 1% includes most government employees in the Western world. What does this tell you?"
If one is "most government employees" where you are, that means you got a total of two. Go ahead and pay 'em a million each, it won't make a dent in the budget.
You overplayed your hand because you're a butthurt whiner. I called your bluff. You're sitting on a busted flush. Take your licking like a man.
Or I guess you could concoct some retarded whimper like "I wasn't speaking literally. They still make too much money!"

You"re right. I should have said many instead of most to keep the nitpickers from getting their panties in a knot.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3069
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

You"re right. I should have said many instead of most to keep the nitpickers from getting their panties in a knot.

You should have said "a few" if you can only list one.

Government employees are usually paid pretty well in the First World. That's a good thing.

I know you don't like it, but you cannot run a 21st-century country with buckboards and six-shooters. It requires massive maintenance.

In the Third World, government employees are paid pretty well too. By bribes, that being the only way anybody ever gets anything done.
 
taxslave
+1
#3070
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You should have said "a few" if you can only list one.
Government employees are usually paid pretty well in the First World. That's a good thing.
I know you don't like it, but you cannot run a 21st-century country with buckboards and six-shooters. It requires massive maintenance.
In the Third World, government employees are paid pretty well too. By bribes, that being the only way anybody ever gets anything done.

Bribes work pretty good here as well. Only they are not called that in polite company. See SNCLavlin. WE charity.
There is mo reason for government employees to be making significantly more more money and bennies than the equivalent private sector employees. Especially since their hiring is not based on merit but quotas.
Also read the article wally linked on the California fires to see what union firefighters are paid in California.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3071
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Bribes work pretty good here as well. Only they are not called that in polite company. See SNCLavlin. WE charity.

Down here, we call 'em "campaign contributions." And they're unlimited.
Quote:

There is mo reason for government employees to be making significantly more more money and bennies than the equivalent private sector employees. Especially since their hiring is not based on merit but quotas.

I don't know about the quotas, so I won't comment on them. I agree with you that government employees should not make more than comparably situated private-sector employees. Again, I don't know about your set-up, but down hereabouts government employees, especially in the senior and high-skill jobs, don't make anywhere near what their private-sector counterparts make. When I worked for the government, I made about 40% of what my classmates in the law firms made.

Quote:

Also read the article wally linked on the California fires to see what union firefighters are paid in California.

Give me the total, I can't be bothered to read Walter's trash. As far as I'm concerned, a mid-career firefighter should make six figures.
 
taxslave
+1
#3072
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Down here, we call 'em "campaign contributions." And they're unlimited.
I don't know about the quotas, so I won't comment on them. I agree with you that government employees should not make more than comparably situated private-sector employees. Again, I don't know about your set-up, but down hereabouts government employees, especially in the senior and high-skill jobs, don't make anywhere near what their private-sector counterparts make. When I worked for the government, I made about 40% of what my classmates in the law firms made.
Give me the total, I can't be bothered to read Walter's trash. As far as I'm concerned, a mid-career firefighter should make six figures.

THey were talking $500 000 for some firefighters. Mostly in the $250 000 range.
Funny thing about government jobs here. Unskilled labour is generally higher paid than in private sector, especially when bennies are included, as are low level office staff. Trades are at the low end of the payscale for comparable private sector even with bennies. As soon as it hits the management groups it gets way out of hand. Municipal is even more out of touch with reality.THen there are some real oddities with federal pay. My position in BC paid more than the same job on the East Coast.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#3073
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

THey were talking $500 000 for some firefighters. Mostly in the $250 000 range.

OK, that's too much.
Quote:

Funny thing about government jobs here. Unskilled labour is generally higher paid than in private sector, especially when bennies are included, as are low level office staff.

To my mind, that's indicative (down here) of the crap money people in unskilled labor/low-level clerical make.

One of our Congressional representatives had Jamie Dimon, president of one of the huge banks, on the hot seat, and demonstrated for him on a whiteboard that in Los Angeles, a single mother with a child working as a teller at his bank couldn't make ends meet. It was high-larious watching him twist on the hook.

Quote:

Trades are at the low end of the payscale for comparable private sector even with bennies. As soon as it hits the management groups it gets way out of hand. Municipal is even more out of touch with reality.THen there are some real oddities with federal pay. My position in BC paid more than the same job on the East Coast.

I'd say they need a board to rationalize all that, but they'd just overpay themselves and not get the job done.
 
taxslave
+3
#3074
There is a huge difference in pay between different types of unskilled labour as well. Sweeping a floor doesn't require much knowledge or skill and except for union places doesn't pay well. Logging is classed as unskilled labour but in reality is highly skilled with a great deal of knowledge and pays reasonably well. Also many jobs are defined as unskilled because there is no university degree needed but require a great deal of knowledge and workmanship that is simply acquired on the job and can not be learned any other way.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#3075
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

There is a huge difference in pay between different types of unskilled labour as well. Sweeping a floor doesn't require much knowledge or skill and except for union places doesn't pay well. Logging is classed as unskilled labour but in reality is highly skilled with a great deal of knowledge and pays reasonably well. Also many jobs are defined as unskilled because there is no university degree needed but require a great deal of knowledge and workmanship that is simply acquired on the job and can not be learned any other way.

Here's what I calculate.

Anybody who's willing to work 40 hours a week, eight hours a day for five days, should be paid enough to afford rent on a decent apartment, a new low-end car every six years, a decent diet, a six-pack of beer a week, a reasonable telecommunications and information package, a functional wardrobe, insurance, and two weeks vacation a year, and the ability to save 10% of their gross for retirement.

Anybody who wants more than that needs to work overtime, get skilled, or inherit.

I don't much care how that's achieved: market, government mandate, union, or a combination of these. I just want it to be rational. A national minimum wage is stupid, you can live pretty well in Miami, Oklahoma for what a studio apartment in New York City by itself would cost you. If you must have a national minimum wage, it should be indexed to cost of living by county or even postal code. Better for states and smaller jurisdictions to each have their own. That way anybody with a backpack and a thumb can "vote with their feet" and move to where they think it'll be better.

Unions are even better. Nothing assures a good outcome like two parties, equally powerful, each fighting for its own benefit. If your local businesses give too much, they go broke. Too bad, so sad. If your government gives the unions too much, they're idiots. If the people keep voting for them, they're idiots. Fortune favors the brave and smart.

For those whose skills are valuable enough to command high pay, they're better off on their own.

Here's the point. If the voters paid as much attention to this as they do to abortion or the color of somebody's skin, we'd have a better system. We live in democracies, ultimately. If you don't like something, change it. If you don't change it, that means one or more of three things. . .

1. Most folk don't think what you think is important is all that important.

2. You didn't work hard enough to get the job done.

3. You have lousy skills of organization and persuasion.
 
petros
+1
#3076
That'd would be nice if inflation wasn't the real problem.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3077
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

That'd would be nice if inflation wasn't the real problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y0yt-3EU64
 
petros
+1
#3078
Awe, did your great idea get shit on? What a drag.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#3079
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Awe, did your great idea get shit on? What a drag.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y0yt-3EU64
 
taxslave
+2
#3080
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Here's what I calculate.
Anybody who's willing to work 40 hours a week, eight hours a day for five days, should be paid enough to afford rent on a decent apartment, a new low-end car every six years, a decent diet, a six-pack of beer a week, a reasonable telecommunications and information package, a functional wardrobe, insurance, and two weeks vacation a year, and the ability to save 10% of their gross for retirement.
Anybody who wants more than that needs to work overtime, get skilled, or inherit.
I don't much care how that's achieved: market, government mandate, union, or a combination of these. I just want it to be rational. A national minimum wage is stupid, you can live pretty well in Miami, Oklahoma for what a studio apartment in New York City by itself would cost you. If you must have a national minimum wage, it should be indexed to cost of living by county or even postal code. Better for states and smaller jurisdictions to each have their own. That way anybody with a backpack and a thumb can "vote with their feet" and move to where they think it'll be better.
Unions are even better. Nothing assures a good outcome like two parties, equally powerful, each fighting for its own benefit. If your local businesses give too much, they go broke. Too bad, so sad. If your government gives the unions too much, they're idiots. If the people keep voting for them, they're idiots. Fortune favors the brave and smart.
For those whose skills are valuable enough to command high pay, they're better off on their own.
Here's the point. If the voters paid as much attention to this as they do to abortion or the color of somebody's skin, we'd have a better system. We live in democracies, ultimately. If you don't like something, change it. If you don't change it, that means one or more of three things. . .
1. Most folk don't think what you think is important is all that important.
2. You didn't work hard enough to get the job done.
3. You have lousy skills of organization and persuasion.

How it used to be. Here anyway. Up until 1980s every mill worker could have a house, car, truck, boat on one salary with a bit of overtime. If the drug & alcohol bill wasn't too high. Priorities. Straight 40 hr week would at least buy house and car.
Now, one salary goes to taxation and the other goes to $400 000 mortgage. Things are decidedly out of whack.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#3081
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

How it used to be. Here anyway. Up until 1980s every mill worker could have a house, car, truck, boat on one salary with a bit of overtime. If the drug & alcohol bill wasn't too high. Priorities. Straight 40 hr week would at least buy house and car.
Now, one salary goes to taxation and the other goes to $400 000 mortgage. Things are decidedly out of whack.

Same here. Used to be a man could graduate public school, get union job, and afford a house, a stay-at-home wife, a couple of kids, and have a decent life.

Ultimately, the problem is that all of the increase in wealth has gone to the top 10%. There's about a million different stats that show this, but this works for me. . .

https://apps.urban.org/features/weal...uality-charts/

So how do we change it? Hell if I know. But more tax breaks for rich people and corporations sure as hell ain't the answer.

I've raised this idea before. . .

How about we tax corporations, and nobody else? The U.S. national budget for 2020 is 4.8 trillion. Corporate revenues are at least 17.4 trillion.

So. . . tax corporations at 30%, and you've covered the budget with room to spare. Corporations will pass on the cost to consumers, and everybody in America will pay. But the "common citizen" will pay less, overall, because her paycheck will rise by 35-45% through no longer paying taxes.

Much easier to administer, too. There aren't as many corporations as there are people, and they're already required to maintain extensive records.

And a simpler system is harder to cheat.

What do you think?
Last edited by Tecumsehsbones; Sep 12th, 2020 at 11:26 AM..
 
DaSleeper
+3
#3082
An old one but true




The Tax System Explained...in Beer!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. The men decided to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, which went something like this..

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing The fifth would pay $1 The sixth would pay $3 The seventh would pay $7 The eighth would pay $12 The ninth would pay $18 The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

The ten men drank in the bar every day and wer e happy with the arrangement, until one day, th e owner threw them a curve ball - “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20′′. From $100 to $80.


The group still wanted to pay their bill the wa y we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. B ut what about the other six men?How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so...

The group still wanted to pay their bill the wa y we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. B ut what about the other six men?How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. And so...

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once they left the bar, the men began to compare their savings. “I onl y got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit tha n me!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for ev en half of the bill! And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore !
 
taxslave
+1
#3083
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

Same here. Used to be a man could graduate public school, get union job, and afford a house, a stay-at-home wife, a couple of kids, and have a decent life.
Ultimately, the problem is that all of the increase in wealth has gone to the top 10%. There's about a million different stats that show this, but this works for me. . .
https://apps.urban.org/features/weal...uality-charts/
So how do we change it? Hell if I know. But more tax breaks for rich people and corporations sure as hell ain't the answer.
I've raised this idea before. . .
How about we tax corporations, and nobody else? The U.S. national budget for 2020 is 4.8 trillion. Corporate revenues are at least 17.4 trillion.
So. . . tax corporations at 30%, and you've covered the budget with room to spare. Corporations will pass on the cost to consumers, and everybody in America will pay. But the "common citizen" will pay less, overall, because her paycheck will rise by 35-45% through no longer paying taxes.
Much easier to administer, too. There aren't as many corporations as there are people, and they're already required to maintain extensive records.
And a simpler system is harder to cheat.
What do you think?

Kind of the opposite. No corporate income taxes on domestic sales, since the tax is just added to the retail price. Export tax on all goods and services sent out of the country. No income tax but a VAT. On the expense side a complete review of government services at all levels with everything not in their mandate eliminated. Overlapping services to be made into one. Cap on salaries for bureaucrats at all levels, commensurate with the budget they control comparable to the private sector.
 
Cliffy
#3084



CAPITALISM IS DESTROYING OUR PLANET
 
DaSleeper
+2
#3085
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post


There you go
 
Cliffy
#3086
 
DaSleeper
#3087
Quote: Originally Posted by cliffy View Post

. . . .
 
taxslave
+1
#3088
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Without capitalism who would cough up the money for your welfare? Certainly not the other slackers.
 
DaSleeper
+2
#3089
Not facebook, cliffy's go-to source for news...
 
Hoid
#3090
world governments have ponied up about $8.5 trillion and counting to keep the good ship Earth afloat.

What has capitalism done?
 

Similar Threads

8
How to save the world
by I think not | Nov 2nd, 2010
348
7 Ways to Save the World
by I think not | Nov 1st, 2010
73
Socialists Will Save The World
by darkbeaver | Apr 21st, 2007