How to keep the Rich under control-

[Cardinal]

You're totally correct, but it's already hard enough to argue for the progressive income tax system, let alone an income progressive fine system. A flat rate may be more politically viable.

My point wasn't that we should drive the rich to desperation as much as $300 ticket will do to the poor (I'm not a huge fan of driving anyone to desperation), but that a progressive penalty system is actually the least we could do.

 

[imagep]

the current system encourages massive government spending since those who demand most of the spending aren't getting proper feedback as to the cost of government. we need to get rid of progressive taxes so those who want more government finally realize how much it costs

You mean low wage paying companies like McDonald's who demand that the government keep up their employees?

 

[TurtleDude]

You mean low wage paying companies like McDonald's who demand that the government keep up their employees?

NO THAT has nothing to do with this

and that is a stupid argument. labor is a commodity. if the labor you offer to sell doesn't get you the wages you want, you need to increase the value of your stock in trade

 

[imagep]

NO THAT has nothing to do with this

and that is a stupid argument. labor is a commodity. if the labor you offer to sell doesn't get you the wages you want, you need to increase the value of your stock in trade

If a company needs the government to provide it's workers with welfare, then they need to pay more.

Until we eliminate means tested welfare, companies have little incentive to pay their workers decent wages.

 

[Declan]

You mean low wage paying companies like McDonald's who demand that the government keep up their employees?

McDonald's pays low wages because people are willing to work for low wages. Take away all the government assistance programs in existence and McDonalds will still pay low wages as long as people are willing to work for them. Do away with welfare and the MW and they would be able to find people to work for less than they are paying them now.

 

[TurtleDude]

If a company needs the government to provide it's workers with welfare, then they need to pay more.

Until we eliminate means tested welfare, companies have little incentive to pay their workers decent wages.

the company needs to pay wages sufficient to get the quality and quantity of the labor it needs

nothing more

 

[SlevinKelevra]

the current system encourages massive government spending since those who demand most of the spending aren't getting proper feedback as to the cost of government. we need to get rid of progressive taxes so those who want more government finally realize how much it costs

wow if you don't think they already know how much it costs.

is it any wonder you dodged the question I posed?

 

[imagep]

McDonald's pays low wages because people are willing to work for low wages. Take away all the government assistance programs in existence and McDonalds will still pay low wages as long as people are willing to work for them. Do away with welfare and the MW and they would be able to find people to work for less than they are paying them now.

Absolutely.

But if means tested welfare didn't exist, I don't think that as many people would be willing to work for low wages. Part of the reason they work low wage jobs is because that allows them to get government freebies.

 

[TurtleDude]

wow if you don't think they already know how much it costs.

is it any wonder you dodged the question I posed?

I denied we should raise taxes on the people who already know what government costs

its time the middle and lower classes start paying for what they want from government

 

[imagep]

the company needs to pay wages sufficient to get the quality and quantity of the labor it needs

nothing more

Sure. And with the existence of welfare, wages don't need to be as high as without welfare.

 

[TurtleDude]

Sure. And with the existence of welfare, wages don't need to be as high as without welfare.

I think you miss the point.

 

[imagep]

I think you miss the point.

I get your point.

I'm just making a different point. Welfare is part of the cause of low wages (admittedly it isn't the only cause) - and it's part of the cause of high taxes. Eliminate welfare, and we correct two problems.

Of course we are both a little off topic.

 

[Helix]

That isn't my issue. my issue is a tax scheme that demands massive government expansion

it isn't your issue? most of the legislation / regulation that you are mad about is paid for in some way or another by lobbyists and campaign financiers. i'd say it's definitely your issue.

 

[TurtleDude]

it isn't your issue? most of the legislation / regulation that you are mad about is paid for in some way or another by lobbyists and campaign financiers. i'd say it's definitely your issue.

I disagree

 

[VanceMack]

McDonald's pays low wages because people are willing to work for low wages. Take away all the government assistance programs in existence and McDonalds will still pay low wages as long as people are willing to work for them. Do away with welfare and the MW and they would be able to find people to work for less than they are paying them now.

McDonalds pays low wages because they hire people to do a job a slightly trained monkey can do.

 

[VanceMack]

I get your point.

I'm just making a different point. Welfare is part of the cause of low wages (admittedly it isn't the only cause) - and it's part of the cause of high taxes. Eliminate welfare, and we correct two problems.

Of course we are both a little off topic.

Low wages are a bi-product of unskilled jobs. If you have a burger joint, you want to hire a high school kid or someone looking to pick up a few bucks on a second job to throw burgers on a patty or drop a basket of fries into a fryer. You dont want to pay 19 bucks an hour to someone to do that same job just because they have 3 kids and an engineering degree.

Wages are commensurate to the job and skill sets required to accomplish the job.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

McDonalds pays low wages because they hire people to do a job a slightly trained monkey can do.

The average male mandrill barely reaches 3 feet tall.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Wages are commensurate to the job and skill sets required to accomplish the job.

ruined business CEO golden parachutes disagree with you.

 

[Helix]

I disagree

GE Is Top Corporate Spender On Lobbying - ABC News

https://www.americanprogress.org/is...ying-can-lead-to-inefficient-economic-policy/

i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree in that case, because lobbying and donations are certainly used to push new regulations and favorable legislation.

 

[Declan]

McDonalds pays low wages because they hire people to do a job a slightly trained monkey can do.

Ad if they paid a six figure salary you would have phd's doing the monkey jobs and not that the job pays 6 figures because phd's do it. It is all supply and demand for labor/work. If I am desperate enough for work and you are making $7.25 an hour, yeah I will undercut your ass to put food on my table instead of completely starving.

 

[ludin]

To who, to you? To someone making two mil a year, that still wouldn't have close to the same dent as a $400 ticket to someone who's making a choice between paying the car permit renewal or the car insurance.

mutually exclusive. really. the ability to pay should have no affect on the fine. arbitrarily assigning penalties based on emotion and feel good policy is a bad idea.

True, it probably wouldn't. I say it has to do with the extraordinary sense of optimism in this country, which leads to the belief that no matter how illogical the presumption, we can all be rich. And we want to believe that when we get there, everything will be perfect.

again it has nothing to do with rich and poor it is a false narrative created by the OP. of course to the OP someone making 50k is rich so I guess a 4k fine to someone making 50k a year is acceptable. even though that would be hugely crippling to them.

Is he? That would surprise me. The progressive penalty system they have in place is pretty standard there. The concept is really not radical to them as it is to us.

actually he said what other people said that finland is making it impossible for people of wealth to live there.

wouldn't surprised me if he took his 7m and his business to another country.

 

[Cardinal]

mutually exclusive. really. the ability to pay should have no affect on the fine. arbitrarily assigning penalties based on emotion and feel good policy is a bad idea.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. It's leveling the weight of the penalties so that the deterrence aspect has an equal impact on all financial strati.

again it has nothing to do with rich and poor it is a false narrative created by the OP. of course to the OP someone making 50k is rich so I guess a 4k fine to someone making 50k a year is acceptable. even though that would be hugely crippling to them.

I think you don't understand the narrative. I have much more money than somebody making minimum wage. Ergo, a $300 speeding tickets that is catastrophic to that person is a minor irritation to me. Ergo, the deterrence factor based on the financial penalty alone is ineffective above a certain financial class.

actually he said what other people said that finland is making it impossible for people of wealth to live there.

Wealthy people live in Finland.

wouldn't surprised me if he took his 7m and his business to another country.

And did he?

 

[ludin]

That kind of hurts the assumption in this thread that those penalties will drive away the rich, doesn't it? And yes, I agree that a community service penalty would hurt the poor even more. And for me it's not about "socking it to the rich guy," but about a practical means of applying penalties in such a way that deterrence is effective across the board. If the impact on a poor person is disproportionately greater than on a rich person, then the deterrence can't be equal. That's socking it to the poor.

again your ideology blocks your logical thinking ability.

the man in this case makes 7m a year. someone making 50k a year is going to pay a few thousand. yet heck with that as long as we are socketing to the rich guy who cares.
of course your not socketing to the rich guy. he is just annoyed.

of course in your progressive system there will be people that pay no fine at all so they can do what they want.
with no fear of consequences for their actions.

so all your progressive system does is put more taxes and fines on working people. funny I thought liberals were supposed to be for working people.

 

[jamesrage]

Does the phrase "overall cost" mean anything to you?

Have a great day....we're done here.

Goodbye

Again a tax rate and traffic fine are two separate things.One of those things can entirely be avoided if one simply obeyed the traffic laws. No one plans on moving to a country thinking how much of a slap on the wrist can they get if they decide to piss all over the traffic laws. It doesn't happen.Traffic fines are not the overall cost.

 

[ludin]

Nope.

It could be based upon a percent of income. So maybe a half percent for a minor infraction. Someone making $20k would then pay $100 (which would be quite significant to them), someone making $40k would pay $200 (equally significant to them), someone making $80 would pay $400 (again, equally significant), someone making $1,000,000 would pay $5,000 (equally significant).

as I said that isn't an equally punitive system that is a progressive system.
which means you want unequal punishment under the law.

your saying that a rich person or middle class person speeding is worse than a poor person which is simply not the case.