Posted on 01/22/2002 3:18:18 PM PST by parsifal
Recently I have been involved in several threads dealing with minimum wages, fair wages, and taxes on the wealthy. Somehow, even though I am pretty "conservative", I manage to be on the opposite side of most freepers on these issues.
So, for fun, and for a view of the "other" side, I present some links to the AFLCIO website.
Calculate your pay if your were a CEO
There are other fun things on the site. Browse around here and play the "Greed" game:
And if you are interested in "living wages" and have some questions:
Why not $100?
I am not so sure the rich are being taxed too much, and indeed, tend to think they ought to be taxed more. I think there should be a 100% estate tax for most rich folks.
Why should there be a "100% estate tax for most rich folks," and what do you mean by "most?"
Karl Marx is smiling somewhere. You are making positive statements (no, that doesn't mean "good"), but they totally lack normative value. What justifies anyone paying a 100% tax on anything? You say the government is too big and all, yet you would use this same government to hammer who you think should be hammered. Why?
You are skating the socialist line, buddy. Be careful where you land.
"Socialized Medicine" will RAPIDLY devolve America into a "Third-World Nation," & our current "Non-Payment System" is about to Rapidly Bankrupt our Docs & Hospitals.
Plain Fact.
Our Docs, Nurses, EMT's, Hospitals, ER's, Medical Research Facilities, etc., ALL are the BEST our Culture has Produced!--We Have the BEST Medical Care the World Has EVER KNOWN!!
"IT AIN'T CHEAP!!"-------------------- "SO WHAT!!!"
The "Problem" is actually "simple;" a couple of years ago, I gave "Flu Shots" (which I Bought from the Suppliers @~$7.50/ dose)! I used to charge $ 15/dose.
Factoring in Supplies (Syringe, etc.) I "Profitted" ~ $1/ dose!
Since "Insurance" has MANDATED "Payment" for the "Flu Shot," I LOSE~$!.75 for EACH DOSE of the FLUVAX I Give!! I see 25-40 patients/day! Many of them need medications which their "Insurance Companies" refuse to "Cover!!" At least 10% of the people I Care for is "Gratis!!" NO "Business" can survive at the level of "payment" (less than 50% ) MANDATED by current "Law!"
In a Country as wealthy as ours, NO ONE should get "Second Class Medical Care!!"
But Some DO!!--because their "Insurance" is "Second Class!!"
We Don't have a "Medical Care" Problem--we have an "Insurance Coverage" problem!!
The "Insurance Industry" needs a COMPLETE OVERHAUL!!.
Consider "Medical Savings Accounts!!"
Doc
So just for kicks, why do you all do that? Can't you understand reasonable limits for things? Does the word "reasonable" not exist in your vocabs? I can just imagine you being one of the ones back about a century ago raising heck against child labor laws? "What, we can't put 12 year olds to work in the mines, anymore? And the textile factories? Well I guess we can't even make them clean their rooms anymore, now."
Why should there be a "100% estate tax for most rich folks," and what do you mean by "most?" IMHO, I am beginning to think it better to not create a class of rich, spoilt entitled great grandkids. If Bob has enough get up and go to make millions, good for hi, Good for his kids. But somewhere along the line, I think Bob's influence needs to end. He's dead. Buried and turned to worms. There's a whole new group of people on the planet and they don't need Bob's dead hands controlling and having an influence on things. (I am still trying to develop this theory of mine.) parsy.
Why is the arbitrary $100 dollars "too high" while the equally arbitrary $8 not? The point is that they are both arbitrary.
Who should decide the value of labor? The market, that's who. Why pay more for a skill than you have to?
Why is it all you pro-business type guys so all or nothing in your analyses?
Because a company's resources are "all or nothing." A dollar can help buy guns or butter, but the same dollar CANNOT do both.
IMHO, I am beginning to think it better to not create a class of rich, spoilt entitled great grandkids.
Aha! There is it! I knew I was hearing ol' Karl speak! "I am beginning to think it better to not create a class of rich, spoilt [sic] entitled great grandkids." The old class warfare argument I see. You just obliterated the concept of property rights. What you earn is your property. But you cannot own property unless you can dispose of it as you see fit. This, then, makes you only a serf. If Bill Gates willed his entire fortune to his posterior, I say good for him because it is his money and he can do with it as he sees fit.
There's a whole new group of people on the planet and they don't need Bob's dead hands controlling and having an influence on things.
If Bob is dead, his hands aren't controlling anything!
(I am still trying to develop this theory of mine.)
Why reinvent the wheel? This "theory" of your has already been developed. It's called MARXISM. You, sir/ma'am are a Leftist. Good day to you.
What was that you were saying about the government being too big again?
Why is it when someone states a position which does not blindly follow conservative line, you want to call them a socialist? If the conservative position is so swell, it should be able to hold up on its own without attacking the messenger. That's what the liberals do!
At least we know "parsfal" is not a liberal?
Every doctor I know is a real estate magnate...accumulating money and power (over tenants) with their excessive charges.
" We Don't have a "Medical Care" Problem--we have an "Insurance Coverage" problem!!"The current systems should not even be characterized with the work insurance. Insurance pools the money of everyone to pay for what might happen to a few. The current systems are merely prepayment plans..payment for what will happen...that's not insurance.
The current "insurance" systems should be scrapped in their entirety and we should go back to a system of pay as you go. In addition, more medical schools should be opened to add competition to the mix, then we would have true capitalism and the doctors could charge what the market would bear. We might also get an added benefit by eliminating the need for students to go to inferior foreign schools to break into the system.
If the government didn't subsidize the labor with taxpayer money (in the form of welfare-food stamps, rent subsidies, etc.)that might work...but that's not the way it is. If a laborer didn't make enought to live on they likely wouldn't work for less than adequate wages and we would all have to pay, AS WE SHOULD, the real cost of a "big mack".
Why should you get it? Nothing you ancestors could have accumulated could have been accumulated without government assistance.
Even ownership of land is not possible without government assistance. And money would be meaningless without government support.
All of the assistance provided by government is based on keeping money and power in the hands of those who have it. Why aren't you calling for government hands off when it comes to that assistance??
and if my ancestors didn't. whats the difference between you and me? why should i be punished for things i didn't do, and you rewarded for things you didn't do? why should you in effect receive affirmative action just by being born to wealthier parents?
The last I heard, you can't take it with you. Now if you want dead folks to own stuff, you shouldn't ought to object to them voting. (I'm at work now, being a wage slave. I'll logically dispose of your other arguments later.) parsy.
If you wanna bring it, bring it. Just don't cry when your feelings get hurt.
Actually, I think the reason why military morale has improved is because Clinton is out and Bush is in!
Parsy, I think you'd be better off if you would start working on your law practice and stop worrying about how much other people are getting paid.
CEO's get paid a lot of money because they have a lot of responsibility. No one is holding a gun to Board's head and saying, "Up the CEO's salary." They are paid commensurate with their value to the company. Workers are also paid commensurate to their value to the company. You don't like that, and want to whine about it.
Grow up and get to work. The rest of us are tired of hearing about your "feelings," none of which are backed up by reason and objective facts. You are a perfect example of the type of economic illiteracy that is so prevalent in our society today, and you a law school graduate! Incredible.
Okay, suppose the govenment sets the minimum wage to $8, like you suggest. That means that the crappiest workers get paid $8 per hour. Now, say you own a business and want a worker who has skills and can do things. Would you offer $8 per hour for a skilled worker, when the unskilled workers get paid that? No, because all your competition is offering $10 per hour for those same skilled workers, because there aren't that many skilled workers, so in order to hire them away from someone else, they have to pay more. Now, of course, the managers have to be paid more, since they will not work for the wages of a skilled worker(why should they, since they manage a group of skilled workers?), so you have to pay them $25 per hour. Now, what about all the middle executives? The CEO? See what happens? Since you set the minimum wage to $8 per hour, the CEO is now getting paid 40% more than the top managers of the company, according to your own data. Raising the minimum wage has a ripple effect that raises the salary of CEO's by large amounts.
Require you to pay the poor enough to eat and put a roof over the head and here you come with your so-called "answer", ala...:"Well why not pay them enough to have a summer home in Vermont? Why not give them all new Rolls Royces? And while you're at it, raise it high enough to eat caviar every morning for brunch..."
The truth is that now everyone is making more than the unskilled laborer who makes $8 per hour, so by definition, the $8 per hour workers are now the "poor", and we've all just made our existing money worth less--inflation. Now everything costs more, but the relative position of the rich/poor have not changed at all. In a few years, people will be crying "$8 isn't enough to live on!", and the cycle will continue. On top of that, somtimes a company, instead of hiring 2 unskilled $8 per hour workers, will start to hire 1 $16 doller per hour skilled workers, since he/she can do the job of at least 2 unskilled workers. At some point, unskilled workers just aren't profitable to hire and you get even more poor, unemployed people. Then people wonder how this could possibly have happened. Gee, if they'd taken econ 101, they'd probably know.
Things get worse. Unskilled laborors who do have jobs won't be able to save much money, since the prices of things will go up(inflationary spiral created by artificial floor on wages paid to workers), and banks won't be able to loan out this money for other people to start businesses, so there will be less jobs, and more unsilled workers will become unemployed.
So just for kicks, why do you all do that? Can't you understand reasonable limits for things? Does the word "reasonable" not exist in your vocabs? I can just imagine you being one of the ones back about a century ago raising heck against child labor laws? "What, we can't put 12 year olds to work in the mines, anymore? And the textile factories? Well I guess we can't even make them clean their rooms anymore, now."
Well, how this economic argument turned into a child labor law debate is beyond me.( uh, straw man?)
Why should there be a "100% estate tax for most rich folks," and what do you mean by "most?" IMHO, I am beginning to think it better to not create a class of rich, spoilt entitled great grandkids. If Bob has enough get up and go to make millions, good for hi, Good for his kids. But somewhere along the line, I think Bob's influence needs to end. He's dead. Buried and turned to worms. There's a whole new group of people on the planet and they don't need Bob's dead hands controlling and having an influence on things. (I am still trying to develop this theory of mine.) parsy.
Well, the only good thing is that this would have put an end to the Kennedy dynasty before it began. Or, would it? Wouldn't Joe Kennedy have found a way to avoid estate taxes though a charitable trust, offshore accounts, or some other means? Like moving the whold family to another country--or buying an island in the carribean and declaring it an independant country? If the rich person leaves that country to avoid estate taxes, how are you going to collect? I don't really think you have thought this through, since the logical result of this would be the flight of capital out of the country, making the US banking system collapse. Why would anyone with assets keep them in the US if they wanted to give them to a specific cause(children, charity, balloon animals for the needy, etc.) and they knew they were going to lose those assets if they died? Especially since they can get their money to their children tax free by taking it out of the US?
Oh, the sweet rewards of a successful discussion...the opposition resorts to name calling.
"some of it makes sense...why in the world should the government get it all? So it can give it to some poor sorry slob who doesn't even know who his daddy is or whose family smoked weed and drank all their paychecks up instead of saving and investing. Halt, stop, don't develop theory anymore."
This says a mouth full. IT MAY MAKE SENSE BUT LETS NOT TALK ABOUT IT, THAT WOULDN'T BE CONSERVATIVE. Sorry Charlie, that the other parties line.
If being a conservative means swallowing everything labeled conservative, then I would pass, but it does not. If it did then we would end up like that other party.
Ouch! That really hurt! But, I am going to ignore my hurt feelings and respond thusly: First, as an attorney, you know that most law is not "facts." It is philosophy and concepts. Concepts like equity and fairness. Concepts like responsibility. Just to give you one example, take minwages. Do you not realize that these were present in the Code of Hammurabi? (and before him, actually.) So were business regulations. See what happened to naughty beer-maids who watered down their beer or shortchanged the serving.
Check out your Blackstone. I recall reading in there that a man could be more or less forced to work a job that paid reasonable wages, but not one that paid an unfair wage. Head on back to Greece and check out a fella named Solon. Look for something called "The Great Shaking Out."
Some of these wierd leftish things I support are actually nothing but the necessary underpinnings of a fair and equitable society.
When you are thru with the history lesson, head on over to your old Contracts textbook. Read some of that stuff dealing with K's of Adhesion, Durees, Unconscionabilty. Then come back to this thread and tell me that voluntary=fair.
I'll write more later. Busy right now trying to get a corporate client out of a bind...parsy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.