|
|
 |
| |
|
| |
|
Wolf_eyes
Veteran
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location: Right behind you......
Posts: 473
|
OR.....I could go back to graduate school(in the process) in order to get a higher degree so that I am qualified for the position I really want, which is a middle-class job. Thats not the point. My point, origionally was that trickle-down economics do not work, and that they are morally and economically unjust. Read my earlier posts for clarification. If you would like, I will re-post them. I then moved to talking about changing the corruptions and evils of the system. Which I will adress now.
I would like to point out that it is not my job to fix this system. It is not my job, because I am not qualified. I am not an economist, nor am I particularly monetarily inclined. I do not assign value to material wealth, and have suffered the consequences of such a lifestyle. I have also reaped the rewards, but these are topics for other posts. What I do feel qualified to comment on, however, is the moral implications of certain economic policies. Having said this, I believe that capitalism is working. It is working much too well, as it is consuming our democracy. Less and less we rely on the will and power of the people and more and more the will and power of the large corporation dominate our government, courts, economy, and day-to-day lives. This to me is very frightening. Who then, dictates public policy? The mandate of the masses is spoonfed to them in cosumerism. God help us. We need to restore the balance. Large changes need to occur. I hesitate to say the "R" word, because of the radical and negatives associations. But let me say this: "a fundemental change in the way of thinking about or visualizing something: a change of paradigm" (mirriam-webster) would be welcome, and may be necessary. We need to stop thining about our economy as a means to power. Let me expand. money today is power, and our economy is centered around the urge to accuire more. There is another name for this: greed. When we begin to realize that our economy should be a way to support ourselves, and more importantly, support each other and our world at large, we will be able to more clearly see that our economy is a symptom of our larger though processes. We need to stop thinking of our jobs as means to accuire more material things, and start thinking about them as a way to support and effect the planet, economically, environmentally, socially, morally. No man is an island...work, check back later...
|
12-11-2003 01:27 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
1young11
Veteran
offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 01:57 AM
Location: Illinois
Posts: 326
|
Wolf Eyes, I know what you mean about hard workers not getting a whole of of money... but I think that your view of this, and taxes is viewed through too much emotion... although I know it is hard to separate emotion from this topic...
I am a firefighter, and it is a hard, and dangerous job, and it does not pay all that much in the larger scheme of things, but how can I complain about my pay when I willingly chose this career knowing that I would not make a fortune.
But making money is not about working hard, its not a matter of how hard you work, it is how hard your assets work. You are in charge of your life, if you feel that you are not appreciated at your work, then start your own business, you will see then, what you dont see now. Right now you are looking at these CEO's, and seeing the end product, but you did not see the work they put in to build their company to the level it is. Most succesful businessmen have failed many times before they have made their fortunes... how many times has Donald Trump been bankrupt? Although of course their are few people who do not fit this rule, but just because there are a few CEO's who are corrupt and greedy, that doesn't mean that every CEO is like that.
Trickle down economics does work, if the tax rate is increased, those tax increases are going to trickle down to the consumers (higher prices), and employees (lower wage), and if the high taxes persists, then eventually the business will close, or move to a place where they are not as heavilly taxed, likewise, if the business prospers, the prosperity will trickle down, if the CEO makes $70,000 more this year, he can buy a new car, which will pass that money to the dealer, and to the car company, and to salesman in the form of a comission, which will give that family more money to go on a vacation which will give more money to their vacation destination (IE bartenders, waiters, conceierge, ect...)
CEO's are in the business to make their company money, the employee's hired in at an agreed wage, if the CEO is raking in the dough, that means the business is doing well, and the employee still has a job. If the CEO is making 4000% above the average worker, that worker is still getting paid at the agreed wage. That worker is not being cheated... he agreed to the pay.
|
12-25-2003 05:39 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
Wolf_eyes
Veteran
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location: Right behind you......
Posts: 473
|
| quote: |
1young11 said this in post #41 :
Wolf Eyes, I know what you mean about hard workers not getting a whole of of money... but I think that your view of this, and taxes is viewed through too much emotion... although I know it is hard to separate emotion from this topic...
I am a firefighter, and it is a hard, and dangerous job, and it does not pay all that much in the larger scheme of things, but how can I complain about my pay when I willingly chose this career knowing that I would not make a fortune.
But making money is not about working hard, its not a matter of how hard you work, it is how hard your assets work. You are in charge of your life, if you feel that you are not appreciated at your work, then start your own business, you will see then, what you dont see now. Right now you are looking at these CEO's, and seeing the end product, but you did not see the work they put in to build their company to the level it is. Most succesful businessmen have failed many times before they have made their fortunes... how many times has Donald Trump been bankrupt? Although of course their are few people who do not fit this rule, but just because there are a few CEO's who are corrupt and greedy, that doesn't mean that every CEO is like that.
Trickle down economics does work, if the tax rate is increased, those tax increases are going to trickle down to the consumers (higher prices), and employees (lower wage), and if the high taxes persists, then eventually the business will close, or move to a place where they are not as heavilly taxed, likewise, if the business prospers, the prosperity will trickle down, if the CEO makes $70,000 more this year, he can buy a new car, which will pass that money to the dealer, and to the car company, and to salesman in the form of a comission, which will give that family more money to go on a vacation which will give more money to their vacation destination (IE bartenders, waiters, conceierge, ect...)
CEO's are in the business to make their company money, the employee's hired in at an agreed wage, if the CEO is raking in the dough, that means the business is doing well, and the employee still has a job. If the CEO is making 4000% above the average worker, that worker is still getting paid at the agreed wage. That worker is not being cheated... he agreed to the pay. |
Let me present you with another scenario. A 13-year old in mexico works in a crowded basement with no air conditioning to tailor nike shoes. He makes 5 dollars a week. He has no room to complain, because that is the wage he agreed on. I agree to the pay I get because I couldnt find any better wages. I do have room to complain. I have a bachelors degree from a highly-touted university, and years of work experience in many fields. I am also currently enrolling in a graduate program, working towards a doctorate. There are more qualified people out there, but not many (think of the numbers, a degree, experience in relevant fields). Still, I am forced to obtain multiple jobs in order to repay my student loans and simply eat and live.
Further, I object to the assumption that a private business owner risks more than his employee's. In fact, I would say the opposite. While the owner can rely on his own savvy and intelligence, the employee must rely on his boss to pay him. Both risk losing thier sole source of income, at any time, in any circumstance. Your argument seems to be that the CEO's deserve to make 4000% more than thier employee's because they worked harder, longer, and risked more. I say, Bu115h1t. In my family, there are two independent, small business owners. They worked very hard, very long to get to where they are. And they are still scraping by. If, by some chance, they were to 'make it big', they would certainly deserve the success. But they would no more deserve thier sucess than the employee who has worked for them for 15 years making barely enough to survive. Did that employee also not work hard and long, and suffer setbacks? Did that employee also not risk thier livelyhood and financial life with the business? It is true, not every CEO is corrupt, but let us look at the definition of greed: "a desire to aquire or possess more than one needs...especially in regards to material wealth...". Now, does that CEO really NEED 10 million dollars a year? does anybody? Maybe they arent all laundering money from thier company, but anyone who makes that much money every year has very little respect for the rest of humanity, as far as I can see.
Trickle-down economics works in the same way communism does--in theory. See post-Regan era for details.
|
12-26-2003 09:17 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Kookaburra
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location:
Posts: 2411
|
Actually the business owner does assume more risks than the employees. If something goes wrong in the company, the owners risk a lawsuit, jail time, fines, etc.
It's not the employees the law goes after. It's the owners. If we screw up on labor laws, the employee isn't the one that gets it, the business owners do. If a 1099 contractor doesn't pay their taxes, the IRS goes after the owner, not the contractor. And guess who has to pay the taxes the contractor failed to pay?
If someone is injured on the owner's property, the employees don't get sued, the owner does.
The CEO's have far more risks and liabilities than the employees do.
|
12-26-2003 10:59 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
1young11
Veteran
offline
Registered: May 2003
Local time: 01:57 AM
Location: Illinois
Posts: 326
|
Again it is not about who works harder, it is about who works smarter. I do not condone imoral business practices, don't get me wrong, I do think there should be limits, but I think you're generalizing again, you are taking one example, and making it sound like everyone is like that, where in fact I would bet that it is a minority.
You chose to put yourself in the situation to owe all of those loans back, from the sounds of it you have a lot of money to pay back, that was your decision, not the CEO of your company's.
About who works harder...Have you ever owned your own business? Are you speaking from your personal experience that business owners don't work as hard as employees?
|
12-27-2003 01:29 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Wolf_eyes
Veteran
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location: Right behind you......
Posts: 473
|
| quote: |
Kookaburra said this in post #45 :
Actually the business owner does assume more risks than the employees. If something goes wrong in the company, the owners risk a lawsuit, jail time, fines, etc.
It's not the employees the law goes after. It's the owners. If we screw up on labor laws, the employee isn't the one that gets it, the business owners do. If a 1099 contractor doesn't pay their taxes, the IRS goes after the owner, not the contractor. And guess who has to pay the taxes the contractor failed to pay?
If someone is injured on the owner's property, the employees don't get sued, the owner does.
The CEO's have far more risks and liabilities than the employees do. |
Good point. I conceed that owners/employers have more legal responsibility as far as thier work is concerned, and therefore, more legal risk. However, it is not always the owners the law goes after, and most often it is the CEO's who escape a bankrupt corporation with millions and the employees who are out of work and broke.
Further, this was a small side note to my post, not the main body.
|
12-27-2003 09:39 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Wolf_eyes
Veteran
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location: Right behind you......
Posts: 473
|
| quote: |
1young11 said this in post #46 :
Again it is not about who works harder, it is about who works smarter. I do not condone imoral business practices, don't get me wrong, I do think there should be limits, but I think you're generalizing again, you are taking one example, and making it sound like everyone is like that, where in fact I would bet that it is a minority.
You chose to put yourself in the situation to owe all of those loans back, from the sounds of it you have a lot of money to pay back, that was your decision, not the CEO of your company's.
About who works harder...Have you ever owned your own business? Are you speaking from your personal experience that business owners don't work as hard as employees? |
Before I begin with this, I should suggest that you quote the post you are refferring to, so that everyone can understand what you are referencing. Im not sure if you are talking to me, but I assume you are from the flavor of the post (or, maybe I'm just an egotist). At any rate...
Who works smarter....your logic seems to imply that working smarter means earning more money. This seems to me to say that if you are not earning tons of money you are not as 'smart' as someone who is. Is this correct? please clarify. Also in this first paragraph you reference something I said (my 'one example'). I do not know to what you are referring.
I do not work for a company, and no CEO forced/suggested I go to college. I went because, among other reasons (which are less relevent to this thread), the job I thought would make me most happy at the time (granted, I was only 18 years old) required a college degree. I made that choice for myself, by myself, and paid for it myself. I did not imply otherwise, indeed, this decision is rooted deep in my personality. As such, I am missing your point.
I have previously explained that I have worked for two relatives who owned their own businesses. They worked very, very hard, and quite often. This is besides the point, however, because I did not say that thier employees worked harder than they did, but rather, they worked AS HARD. I have worked as both an employee and manager. That is my personal experience.
|
12-27-2003 09:50 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Kookaburra
In the Now Guru
offline
Registered: Jun 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location:
Posts: 2411
|
| quote: |
Wolf_eyes said this in post #48 :
Who works smarter....your logic seems to imply that working smarter means earning more money. This seems to me to say that if you are not earning tons of money you are not as 'smart' as someone who is. Is this correct? please clarify. Also in this first paragraph you reference something I said (my 'one example'). I do not know to what you are referring. |
I think what she may mean by working smarter is by making your money work for you, instead of you working for money. That is, invest it and make it earn more money for you instead of working for it. That's called "passive income". It's income that just comes in without having to work for it.
It that isn't what she meant, perhaps she'll explain. I would really like to recommend a book to you Wolf. It's called "Rich Dad Poor Dad". It explains why the rich are rich and the poor are poor and the middle class are middle class. I would have given anything to have known a person like Robert's "rich dad" who told him how to think about money properly.
On one side, kids are taught to go to school, get a degree, work hard.... and the other side, the kids are taught to make money work for you.
It's an incredible story about the ways people view money, assets, liabilities, working, investing, etc.
Passive income is what my goal is. Let's say for instance you invent a software program. The idea would be to work hard to develop it, then license it out. The passive income will come from the licensing. You already did the work, now you get the royalties from your work.
Working hard and not having passive income is not working smart. You go to work...work hard... pay bills... but then you have to work for more income so you work hard...pay bills... but then you have to work for more income.
That isn't letting your money work for you.
|
12-27-2003 10:59 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Wolf_eyes
Veteran
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location: Right behind you......
Posts: 473
|
I guess Im not the most qualified to write books about fiscal responsibility or financial sucess. I do know enough, however, to understand that the system is not set up, not designed for everyone to succeed. Capitalism simply does not have room for everyone to be a millionaire. As such, there are always going to be losers. The system is designed for 'haves' and 'have-nots'. That being the case, I believe that it is the middle ground that needs to be.....strived towards. America succeeds because we hvae such a huge middle class. But our middle class is shrinking, and the gap between the top 10% of the population (those which own 90% of the money) and the rest of the people is widening. I may not know how to 'make my money work for me' in the same way as the author of that book, but then again, I may not be interested in that. I do not want to be rich. I realize that separates me from most of society (in yet another way), but thats how I feel. Please, read my last post on "conservatives, help" in the Iraq section. It explains how I feel about these issues.
|
12-31-2003 06:46 PM
|
|
|
| |
|
Faring_Touray
Rookie
offline
Registered: Jan 2004
Local time: 06:57 PM
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 1
|
Hi all,
I have been thinking about trickle down economics quite a bit lately. When browsing the web, I found only this thread. This seems like such an important issue, I wonder why more people don't talk about it.
Briefly, all my Rep. friends think TDE is the holy grail and that we need to protect the upper class at all costs. All the basic TDE arguments...
At first blush of course TDE seems inane. But these monied folk are quick to point out that a stimulated economy is better than a burdened one. Isn't there some basic rules of economics we are forgetting?
Take the diner example. What does this have to do with anything? Aren't we talking about money coming into people's pockets, not money going out? Aren't _earnings_ taxed? I completely fail to see the relevance of the diner example.
Scarcity
What about scarcity? Sure, a growing economy helps extract/create resources at a faster clip, but there is a basic and fundamental problem of scarcity in the world. Thus, every time Bill Gates gets 1$ richer, it means that we get poorer. Supply and demand is driven by scarcity. There is no getting around it.
Money Begets Money
In an aristocracy (as all human societies are) money begets money. Taxes are a way to combat corruption by levying a balancing force against the magnetic nature of capital. Man gets rich, has rich friends, they do favors for each other, get richer, control governments, get richer, manipulate taxes codes, INVENT trickle-down economics, get richer, control media sources...
Taxes are a natural check-and-balance against old money.
Gap between Rich and Poor
The gap between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming rate. Quiz: Does anyone know what the self-correcting check is to income disparities between the classes? Are the rich people getting smarter and more efficient? Hogwash.
Cream off the Top
So, in the absence of taxes levied on the ultra-rich, what happens. Ok, CEO has more money, hires more people, business gets bigger, designs new product that makes other jobs obsolete (this is a system remember), they lose jobs, but there is a small net gain in employment. But, 2x the amount of money has moved thru the CEO's hands. Yes, 95% of this money is recycled. But 5% goes to him. Now cut taxes more. 4x the amount of money rolls thru and profit margins increase and money is spent on lobbying for more tax cuts.
So now the CEO himself has 4x or more the amount of money(greater profit margin). And he reinvested heavily. Every time more money moves thru his hands he gets more rich and gains more control of government. Scarcity kicks in. House prices sky-rocket. Cheap consumer goods abound.
His wealth came from somewhere. Some was newly created, but lots of it was reapportioned from the lower classes. And now that he owns the votes, they cant get it back.
Upper-middle Class Woes
Question: Did the upper middle class (you and me) benefit from trickle down? Not directly. So why in the world are all my Rep. friends soooo supportive of defending the ultra-rich? So weird...
I know this is disjointed at times and harsh at others, but this whole thing really bugs me.
TDE seems so stupid and transparent. Upper-middle class people should look up their tax burden and compare it to the amount they contribute to the Rep. party. Money only buys votes (curries favor) when it comes in large bundles... Who sold us this garbage?
|
01-23-2004 02:49 AM
|
|
|
| |
|
Wolf_eyes
Veteran
offline
Registered: Apr 2003
Local time: 08:57 PM
Location: Right behind you......
Posts: 473
|
Let me just post a little something here for you to chew on. This is from Time magazine, feb 2, 2004.
from 1992-2000, the yearly 'salaries and wages' earned by the nations top 400 families or individuals went from 12.3 million apiece to 29 million. Id say thats a bit above inflation. Further, the pay of those 400 families equaled the yearly income of 504,600 retail clerks. 'Thats roughly the equivalent of the folks in Big Piney, WYo., recieving the same income as all the people in pittburgh, Pa., and several of its suburbs.' Think about that. And you are preaching a system of economics that preserves and strengthens thier hold on thier money? Give me a break. Half a million to 400. Gee, thats fair.
|
01-30-2004 09:13 PM
|
|
|
| |
<
>
Copyright ?2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Page generated in 0.06891489 seconds (89.33% PHP - 10.67% MySQL) with 38 queries.
|
|
|
|
