361 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
361 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Swiss to vote on basic income of $33,000 for all citizens!

by TimPhelan
292 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
This referendum will be voted on in two or three years and if it passes it would give a guaranteed minimum income of 30,000 swiss Francs ( $33,000 ) to all citizens whether they work or not. It's an idea which dates back centuries actually to one of my favorite founding fathers Thomas Paine. More recently noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman proposed the negative income tax which is somewhat similar. What the Swiss will be voting on is something that goes further than what either proposed though.

Generation Basic Income's proposal represents a quantum leap. For starters, 2,500 Swiss francs per month is a substantial sum. Also, unlike with welfare programs, beneficiaries wouldn't be required to document that they are unable to work...

If it passes, the right to a minimum income will be written into Switzerland's constitution, but it will be up to Parliament to decide how to implement it. Providing each citizen with the proposed salary would require a massive amount of money--some $220 billion a year, or roughly a third of Switzerland's gross domestic product.
Inequality Fight: Swiss Will Vote on Minimum Income - Businessweek

It's an interesting idea in many ways. It can be argued that it wouldn't discourage a desire to work and achieve because you would keep the money whether you work or not and most people will want more money to live a better life. As the article points out it would likely dramatically change the labor market among other aspects of society.

How would it be paid for? About a 1/3 of it would come from existing social programs. Another large part would be "recouped by cuts in salaries, because the payments would replace part of existing paychecks." The remaining amount would be paid for by a consumption tax ( equally applied to all citizens usually ) and estate tax and/or tariifs.
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well, when I looked at what it took for an outsider to become a swiss citizen, it included being there 20 years, learning german, and proof that you had income over like $60K.

    HERE is what a site says today:

    Foreigners with no direct blood ties to Switzerland through either birth or marriage must live in the country for at least 12 years before they can apply for citizenship. (Years spent in the country between age ten and 20 count double). The person must be well integrated, familiar with customs and traditions, law abiding, and pose no threat to internal or external security.

    The Federal Migration Office will then “green light” an applicant’s request to begin the naturalisation process but that does not mean citizenship is certain. Rather, cantons and municipalities have their own requirements that must be met. One canton, for example, might require applicants to live for two years in the region while another might require a decade. For more on the process, please visit the Federal Migration Office.
    So they are BETTER with their laws and sovereignty than the US, even if the US DID force them to break some.

    Milton Friedman did NOT say simply pay the poor. He said they must apply, and could be paid a portion in relation to their assets and need, and dictate what it is to be spent on. It is very different. For the beach guy I spoke of earlier, he may have some trouble. It also takes into account the first tier, so one being paid a negative tax would NOT make more than the lowest that DON'T! Milton gave an example with tiers starting at $3000. With miltons plan, and the current tax law, I guess it would be less than $3900/year.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

    FURTHER, if they DID have a windfall, as the beach guy supposedly plans, they would have to pay that much MORE tax in that year!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112384].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Well, when I looked at what it took for an outsider to become a swiss citizen, it included being there 20 years, learning german, and proof that you had income over like $60K.

      HERE is what a site says today:



      So they are BETTER with their laws and sovereignty than the US, even if the US DID force them to break some.
      That has nothing to do with the topic of course, except it's the same country. Focus Steve. You can do it.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112642].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        That has nothing to do with the topic of course, except it's the same country. Focus Steve. You can do it.
        It DOES if someone from here wants to go there! It DOES if you figure in the effects of migration and foreign taxes!

        HERE, we spend a FORTUNE on illegals, and any amount taken in doesn't pay for it, so CITIZENS do!

        THERE, they spend virtually NOTHING on illegals, and all amounts taken in pay for the CITIZENS.

        Now YOU can focus on THAT!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112669].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
    it would be nice to live in a country whereby personal taxation started at 33,000, and those under would be supplemented up to 33,000

    much better use of my taxation dollars than sending troops to afghanistan and iraq
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112428].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by hardraysnight View Post

      it would be nice to live in a country whereby personal taxation started at 33,000, and those under would be supplemented up to 33,000

      much better use of my taxation dollars than sending troops to afghanistan and iraq
      Don't worry, such a system would mean NO ARMY!
      NO GUNS!
      NO SHOES!
      etc....

      Unless of course inflation comes in and makes the $33,000 worthless. That would mean they $33,000 wouldn't look like anything though.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112492].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Don't worry, such a system would mean NO ARMY!
        NO GUNS!
        NO SHOES!
        etc....

        Unless of course inflation comes in and makes the $33,000 worthless. That would mean they $33,000 wouldn't look like anything though.

        Steve
        but there will always be the swiss navy
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115957].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by hardraysnight View Post

          but there will always be the swiss navy
          WHO'S going to pay them, or pay for the boats, etc.....?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116225].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
            Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

            WHO'S going to pay them, or pay for the boats, etc.....?

            Steve
            citizens or seikos?
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116626].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kay King
              In a college class years ago we were assigned to choose a famous person we would like to sit and talk to for an hour - and to explain why. My choice was Gaddafi. Power corrupted Gaddafi over the years but early on he was a charismatic man with interesting social views and a great intellect.

              Gaddafi's legend may be greater than his reality. The Libyan benefits list above is published on a lot of sites but the numbers ($$$) vary. It paints a rosy picture - and truly under Gaddafi Libya became a prosperous country.

              It doesn't explain why the Libyan people turned against Gaddafi one tribe after another. The social theory is if people are well taken care of - they are content. What went wrong?

              Gaddafi was a skilled political manipulator, playing off different tribes against each other and against state institutions or constituencies. He also developed a strong personality cult.

              More and more, his rule became characterised by patronage and the tight control of a police state.

              The worst period for Libyans was probably the 1980s, when Col Gaddafi experimented on his people with his social theories.

              As part of his "cultural revolution" he banned all private enterprise and unsound books were burned.

              He also had dissidents based abroad murdered. Freedom of speech and association were absolutely squashed and acts of violent repression were numerous.
              The "patronage" comment is interesting. It's not the same as social justice when 'patronage' is at the whim of the person in control.

              BBC News - Gaddafi's quixotic and brutal rule

              Intimidated no more, Libyans end Gaddafi's rule | Reuters
              Signature
              Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

              I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117411].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                Gaddafi's legend may be greater than his reality. The Libyan benefits list above is published on a lot of sites but the numbers ($$$) vary. It paints a rosy picture - and truly under Gaddafi Libya became a prosperous country.

                It doesn't explain why the Libyan people turned against Gaddafi one tribe after another. The social theory is if people are well taken care of - they are content. What went wrong?
                Well, people ALWAYS want more. And if a currency has no INTRINSIC value or can't maintain a stable relationship to foreign currencies, inflation occurs, and the perceived value drops about as fast. It is BETTER to have 30% be in poverty, with stable currency, than to have 100% billionares with currency under hyperinflation.

                BESIDES, under the FIRST scenario, the poor have a chance, and may become rich. Under the second scenario, even the richest may find themselves trying to work for the ret of their lives with NO retirement in sight.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120340].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    I'd never vote for that, and I'm so glad we're not yet like that. If someone doesn't figure out and work their own way to prosperity, then they don't deserve it. Why should others work harder to give their money away to those that can't figure it out? Helping out the elderly and crippled is fine - all others should get off their lazy arses and make their own way.

    I've been without a job and money before - and there's no way I'd be selfish enough to sit on my bum and wait for others to make me comfortable.

    The Swiss economy will probably go through a period of hyper inflation if such a bill ever passes. Money becomes worth a lot less when you start giving it to everyone. Combine that with the incredible tax rate they'll have to pay to keep that up, and you'll have inflation through the roof.

    People forget that the money has to come from somewhere - if that burden is spread out, then every person would have a tax bill of at least 33,000 just to pay for that program. Not sustainable.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112730].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      Combine that with the incredible tax rate they'll have to pay to keep that up, and you'll have inflation through the roof.

      People forget that the money has to come from somewhere - if that burden is spread out, then every person would have a tax bill of at least 33,000 just to pay for that program. Not sustainable.
      It seems a good portion would already be paid for. Interestingly enough, most of the new revenue that would have to be raised through a new tax would likely end up going to the middle class and wealthy. Ironic huh? Hey, they already have welfare, unemployment and subsidies for the poor, so what would change most it seems is the money that would go to others.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112749].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author garyv
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        It seems a good portion would already be paid for.
        Paid for how? I seriously doubt they have enough surplus to do such a program.

        This is a lazy person's dream - sorry it's never going to happen. - But I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

        But for now I'm bowing out of this thread. Have fun with it.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112773].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Wisdom speaks.

          Originally Posted by garyv View Post


          This is a lazy person's dream -
          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113273].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by garyv View Post

          Paid for how? I seriously doubt they have enough surplus to do such a program.
          According to one of the people behind it they would take most of the money currently spent on social programs to pay for about 1/3 of it. A second large chuck would come from part of current salaries. I'm not sure how that would work out as I haven't seen their proposal, but from what they say it seems those two sources would comprise more than 50% of the money needed. The rest would have to be new income and they propose a combination of a consumption tax, tarrifs and estate taxes.
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114770].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            According to one of the people behind it they would take most of the money currently spent on social programs to pay for about 1/3 of it. A second large chuck would come from part of current salaries. I'm not sure how that would work out as I haven't seen their proposal, but from what they say it seems those two sources would comprise more than 50% of the money needed. The rest would have to be new income and they propose a combination of a consumption tax, tarrifs and estate taxes.
            Tim doesn't that sound like they are taking money from the people and then giving it back to them?
            Aren't their social programs paid for with the peoples taxes?
            Taking part of their current salaries, just to give it back?
            The only thing I see that isn't from the people they are giving it back to is the tariffs.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114845].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              Tim doesn't that sound like they are taking money from the people and then giving it back to them?
              Aren't their social programs paid for with the peoples taxes?
              Taking part of their current salaries, just to give it back?
              The only thing I see that isn't from the people they are giving it back to is the tariffs.
              Yeah, so the current taxes would remain the same whatever they are. I'm assuming they are progressive. I personally would want the the new taxes to be more progressive than a consumption tax but having a consumption tax might help get the referendum passed.

              I think they are referring to a part of public employess salaries.

              It seems to be a form of income redistribution in reaction to what they see as income inequality.
              Signature
              Over 50 Dating
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114892].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                It is a form of income redistribution but it doesn't carry the "us against them" attitude that seems to be growing in the US.

                A big plus is it's a system that would be hard to game or cheat - and would be rather inexpensive to administrate. It wouldn't be open to political intrigue or special interests.

                So often, people in need fall through cracks in our system in the US because they don't know how to game the system or navigate it. They don't know that "no" means "maybe" - or "come up with a better excuse". At the same time there are those who know the ins and out and pass them on to friends and relatives - they know what answers to give and don't much care about truth.
                Signature
                Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114942].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                  The equivalent in the US would be someone earning $19k and getting an additional 16k. You're right - it would make a big difference.

                  have more of a problem giving $33,000 to the wealthy here than about giving it to the poor.
                  But that makes it work - the fairness of the distribution makes it seem like taking care of everyone rather than taking from one person to hand out to someone else.
                  Signature
                  Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                  I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114980].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                    But that makes it work - the fairness of the distribution makes it seem like taking care of everyone rather than taking from one person to hand out to someone else.
                    I agree. I was just kind of joking and responding to others who had a problem with it mostly because of idea of giving it to the poor who don't want to work, like the surfer dude.
                    Signature
                    Over 50 Dating
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115031].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                  It is a form of income redistribution but it doesn't carry the "us against them" attitude that seems to be growing in the US.
                  Great point! When I saw this a while back I thought about looking at it as if the citizens were part of a large business and each citizen's income could be looked at as dividends. It would be the one time all were equal as far as income. The Swiss just defeated a proposal to limit executives pay, so they want the ability to become rich. That motivation would still be there I think.

                  A big plus is it's a system that would be hard to game or cheat - and would be rather inexpensive to administrate. It wouldn't be open to political intrigue or special interests.

                  So often, people in need fall through cracks in our system in the US because they don't know how to game the system or navigate it. They don't know that "no" means "maybe" - or "come up with a better excuse". At the same time there are those who know the ins and out and pass them on to friends and relatives - they know what answers to give and don't much care about truth.
                  Two more good points!
                  Signature
                  Over 50 Dating
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115017].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            Two things:

            The cost of living in Switzerland is considerably higher than in the US so the $34k discussed is not the equivalent of $34k income in the US when considering purchasing power. Look through the table below - including at the bottom where average salaries are listed.

            Cost Of Living Comparison Between United States And Switzerland

            $34k sounds great to us - but it is the equivalent of about $17k annually in the US. In Switzerland the monthly income guarantee proposed is 42% of the average monthly salary after taxes.

            Adjusted for the difference in cost of living and income - that would be the equivalent of a full time U.S. job with minimum wage of about $8.20. The Swiss aren't providing a "good income" to everyone - but a subsistence income that can provide basics - if the citizen wants more they have to work for it.

            Also - the guaranteed salary in Switzerland would be to every citizen - whether they work or not - and would be paid to all...rich and poor alike. It sounds like a fair system so will be interesting to see where and how it goes.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

            I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114880].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

              Also - the guaranteed salary in Switzerland would be to every citizen - whether they work or not - and would be paid to all...rich and poor alike.
              Right. I actually would probably have more of a problem giving $33,000 to the wealthy here than about giving it to the poor.

              I would think the biggest impact might be on the working middle class. To someone making $40,000 a year and just squeaking by for whatever reason that $33,000 would make a huge difference.
              Signature
              Over 50 Dating
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Don't worry, such a system would mean NO ARMY!
      That reminds me a a story I heard.
      I man from Switzerland was talking to a German.
      He said "We don't have an army but every male over 18 has a rifle and is trained to use it. All 50,000 of them"
      The German replied "We have an army of 100,000. What would you do if we attacked?"
      "Shoot twice and go home." He replied.

      Tim if they can pull it off that's good for them.
      I think the Netherlands does something very similar.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112768].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

      [b]The Swiss economy will probably go through a period of hyper inflation if such a bill ever passes.]/b] Money becomes worth a lot less when you start giving it to everyone. Combine that with the incredible tax rate they'll have to pay to keep that up, and you'll have inflation through the roof.

      People forget that the money has to come from somewhere - if that burden is spread out, then every person would have a tax bill of at least 33,000 just to pay for that program. Not sustainable.
      What a COINCIDENCE! The Swiss Franc recently became a FIAT currency! So that will FACILITATE the hyper inflation you spoke about. STILL, they have laws and a native culture that makes them LESS likely to have such a problem than WE are.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112787].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Here's what Thomas Paine had to say on the subject of income inequality in his article called Agrarian Justice from 1795. It's some of the most thought provoking and interesting ideas on the subject of poverty, civilization, property etc...

        To preserve the benefits of what is called civilized life, and to remedy at the same time the evil which it has produced, ought to considered as one of the first objects of reformed legislation.

        Whether that state that is proudly, perhaps erroneously, called civilization, has most promoted or most injured the general happiness of man is a question that may be strongly contested. On one side, the spectator is dazzled by splendid appearances; on the other, he is shocked by extremes of wretchedness; both of which it has erected. The most affluent and the most miserable of the human race are to be found in the countries that are called civilized.

        To understand what the state of society ought to be, it is necessary to have some idea of the natural and primitive state of man; such as it is at this day among the Indians of North America. There is not, in that state, any of those spectacles of human misery which poverty and want present to our eyes in all the towns and streets in Europe.

        Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called civilized life. It exists not in the natural state. On the other hand, the natural state is without those advantages which flow from agriculture, arts, science and manufactures.

        The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich.

        Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.

        It is always possible to go from the natural to the civilized state, but it is never possible to go from the civilized to the natural state. The reason is that man in a natural state, subsisting by hunting, requires ten times the quantity of land to range over to procure himself sustenance, than would support him in a civilized state, where the earth is cultivated.

        When, therefore, a country becomes populous by the additional aids of cultivation, art and science, there is a necessity of preserving things in that state; because without it there cannot be sustenance for more, perhaps, than a tenth part of its inhabitants. The thing, therefore, now to be done is to remedy the evils and preserve the benefits that have arisen to society by passing from the natural to that which is called the civilized state.

        In taking the matter upon this ground, the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period...

        It is a position not to be controverted that the earth, in its natural, cultivated state was, and ever would have continued to be, the common property of the human race. In that state every man would have been born to property. He would have been a joint life proprietor with rest in the property of the soil, and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal...

        Every proprietor, therefore, of cultivated lands, owes to the community ground-rent (for I know of no better term to express the idea) for the land which he holds; and it is from this ground-rent that the fund prod in this plan is to issue.

        It is deducible, as well from the nature of the thing as from all the stories transmitted to us, that the idea of landed property commenced with cultivation, and that there was no such thing, as landed property before that time. It could not exist in the first state of man, that of hunters. It did not exist in the second state, that of shepherds: neither Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, nor Job, so far as the history of the Bible may credited in probable things, were owners of land.

        Their property consisted, as is always enumerated in flocks and herds, they traveled with them from place to place. The frequent contentions at that time about the use of a well in the dry country of Arabia, where those people lived, also show that there was no landed property. It was not admitted that land could be claimed as property.

        There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made...

        It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.

        In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.

        Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

        To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

        And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.
        http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112812].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Here's what Thomas Paine had to say on the subject of income inequality in his article called Agrarian Justice from 1795. It's some of the most thought provoking and interesting ideas on the subject of poverty, civilization, property etc...
          Paine had nothing 'to say on the subject of income inequality'. You might want to read the pamphlet a little more carefully. You're attempting to distort what he wrote to fit your own favoritism of a socialistic society, so you can say, "Look! See? A founding father agrees with us!"

          I wonder why you emphasized that portion that deals with the origins of private property? Is it because you think he is saying that the 'public' - the government - should take ownership of the land? He is not. Sorry to disappoint.

          Paine suggested paying £10 per year to those over 50, 50 years being the average life expectancy at the time. £10 per year was less than half (actually 43.5%) of the yearly wage of the average agricultural worker at the time, £23.

          So let's use modern numbers. The average life expectancy in the US in 2011 was 78.64 years. We'll use 150% of the minimum wage as the base wage of the 'average agricultural worker'. Fair? That's $22,620 a year ($7.25 x 40 x 52 x 1.5, if you want to do the math).

          You'd be up in arms at offering the elderly - after they reach 78 years old - the princely sum of $9,831 per year (43.5% of $22,620).

          Shall we talk also about a couple of Paine's thoughts on government?

          It is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle.
          The progressive left would have us believe that the Constitution is a 'living document', changeable with the times according to the wishes of the party in power, instead of a set of principles that constrain the actions of government.

          When the rich plunder the poor of his rights, it becomes an example of the poor to plunder the rich of his property, for the rights of the one are as much property to him as wealth is property to the other and the little all is as dear as the much. It is only by setting out on just principles that men are trained to be just to each other; and it will always be found, that when the rich protect the rights of the poor, the poor will protect the property of the rich. But the guarantee, to be effectual, must be parliamentarily reciprocal.
          'Rights' and 'wealth' are, to Paine, both property, and to be protected equally. Tell me, with a straight face, that progressives defend wealth as property as aggressively as they defend the 'rights of the poor'.

          Do you actually think Thomas Paine would be an advocate of the type of socialism that is being proposed? LOL
          Signature

          The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

          Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114487].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

            Paine had nothing 'to say on the subject of income inequality'.
            Sure he did. He of course didn't use that term but he certainly was talking about how civilization created those with great wealth and also terrible poverty. Did you miss that part?

            I wonder why you emphasized that portion that deals with the origins of private property? Is it because you think he is saying that the 'public' - the government - should take ownership of the land? He is not.
            Nope. He was clearly in favor of owning property but was saying there should be some sort of "rent" for the owner. He suggests a form of property tax and inheritance tax.

            You'd be up in arms at offering the elderly - after they reach 78 years old - the princely sum of $9,831 per year.
            Paine was presenting a form of income security for the elderly to help fight the poverty he talked about. Just as SS did 140 or so years later. Just as SS wasn't meant to be the sole source of income hopefully for most seniors, I don't think he envisioned his plan to be the only source of income either. The point is, here was one of the most important of our founding fathers envisioning a system that became a reality so many years later. Yes, a "socialistic" system for sure.

            'Rights' and 'wealth' are, to Paine, both property, and to be protected equally. Tell me, with a straight face, that progressives defend wealth as property as aggressively as they defend the 'rights of the poor'.
            Some of the most progressive people I know personally are doing really well for themselves. Being wealthy and progressive are not mutually exclusive.

            Do you actually think Thomas Paine would be an advocate of the type of socialism that is being proposed?
            Of course he would and he would detest the run away capitalism and yes, income inequality, that is rampant these days. He would absolutely be at the forefront of the progressive cause and I bet would be over in Switzerland right now trying to get that referendum passed.
            Signature
            Over 50 Dating
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114735].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Of course he would and he would detest the run away capitalism and yes, income inequality, that is rampant these days. He would absolutely be at the forefront of the progressive cause and I bet would be over in Switzerland right now trying to get that referendum passed.
              LOL, whatever you say
              Signature

              The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

              Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114905].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    We could do that easily here - all we have to do is stop subsidizing corporations, then put in what we already pay into welfare and food stamps. Viola - we have a country of people who have the money to live decently........or to screw up and be completely out of luck if they do. Of course, here, the gov would want to tell us how we were allowed to spend every cent instead of leaving it to individuals to decide whether to live well or blow it and starve. At that point, too - if you blew it and landed in a ditch it would be nobody's fault but your own........nobody left to blame it on.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112776].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      No - we couldn't do that easily here. Switzerland has 8 million people - no big defense system - doesn't donate billions a year to the rest of the world, has little debt.

      Interesting that Greece is similar in size - offered increasing benefits and look at the result. ON its face seems to show how debt and bad policy creates a different outcome but that's just a guess.

      Why Switzerland Has Some Of The Happiest, Healthiest Citizens In The World
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112801].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Interesting that Greece is similar in size - offered increasing benefits and look at the result.
        The Greek collapse was caused by three things, not just the one you quoted.

        The first was a severe lack of any viable industries apart from tourism.

        The second was a lax system for collecting taxes. Apparently paying tax in Greece was considered "optional".

        The third was an (overly) generous "welfare" system.

        To blame the collapse on just the third without taking into account the first two is somewhat disingenuous.

        All that aside, I don't know if they'd taken care of the first two as they should've done in the first place, would've prevented a collapse. In all likelihood, it probably wouldn't have.

        However it certainly wouldn't have been as severe as it turned out to be.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112934].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          [quote=whateverpedia;9112934]The Greek collapse was caused by three things, not just the one you quoted.

          The first was a severe lack of any viable industries apart from tourism.
          I guess not TOO much! I knew a person once and was told his father is paying him an WEEKLY ALLOWANCE! OK, OK, I know! That doesn't sound too special. OK, he was in his 40s or so. STILL not impressed? It was $5000 USD PER WEEK! So he was getting $260000/year from his GREEK FATHER doing business in GREECE! There ARE some industries. I don't know how profitable they are, etc... But if you get over a quarter million from your father as an allowance, I guess they couldn't be doing THAT bad.

          The second was a lax system for collecting taxes. Apparently paying tax in Greece was considered "optional".
          You can NEVER count on others! If they didn't have enough, they should have cut back on expenses. That's what I did!

          The third was an (overly) generous "welfare" system.
          That kind of WAS the point!

          To blame the collapse on just the third without taking into account the first two is somewhat disingenuous.
          Not really! As I said, you should NOT count on what you MIGHT get. Businesses like that, in the US, are, IRONICALLY, ILLEGAL! They are called PONZI SCHEMES!

          They all have a few things....
          1. Don't do any meaningful business to get money, though they sometimes claim they do
          2. Accept money, and try to make it look like they are doing fantastic.
          3. Encourage all to let it ride. To those that won't, they use money from newer people.
          4. Most money goes to the owners. Those that put money in LOSE.

          Look at social security in the US....
          1. Don't do any meaningful business, they originally said it was in treasury bonds.
          2. Accept money, and try to say they are fine.
          3. They limit exchanges and if you start early you must continue, and the amount paid out is lower. THEY decide how much you are paid, and what times you can collect.
          4. If they determine they have enough for this year, they declare the rest to be surplus and freely use it as such.

          SO, they are doing LOTS of things to reduce payouts, and start later.

          All that aside, I don't know if they'd taken care of the first two as they should've done in the first place, would've prevented a collapse. In all likelihood, it probably wouldn't have.
          It wouldn't have prevented a collapse. At BEST, it would DELAY it.

          However it certainly wouldn't have been as severe as it turned out to be.
          WHO KNOWS?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112997].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Tim,

          So I take it that you are in favor of a government imposed minimum annual income?

          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113020].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

            Tim,

            So I take it that you are in favor of a government imposed minimum annual income?

            Joe Mobley
            I'm interested in the idea behind it Joe. What I am in favor of is the national vote on the referendum. One of the backers says it wouldn't stand a chance if the vote was today but they have two to three years to make their case. I know the idea wouldn't stand a chance here in the US for the foreseeable future. If the Swiss people passes it I will be watching for next several years to see what happens.
            Signature
            Over 50 Dating
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114816].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          The Greek collapse was caused by three things, not just the one you quoted.

          The first was a severe lack of any viable industries apart from tourism.

          The second was a lax system for collecting taxes. Apparently paying tax in Greece was considered "optional".

          The third was an (overly) generous "welfare" system.

          To blame the collapse on just the third without taking into account the first two is somewhat disingenuous.

          All that aside, I don't know if they'd taken care of the first two as they should've done in the first place, would've prevented a collapse. In all likelihood, it probably wouldn't have.

          However it certainly wouldn't have been as severe as it turned out to be.
          Well, how can a country develop a viable industry if there is zero incentive for people to strive for excellence?

          And if taxes are higher than people are able to pay, how is it even remotely possible to enforce such without inciting revolt?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113315].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author NewParadigm
    so overall taxes will continue and go up with a consumption tax, because you cannot pay for ongoing benefits with one time reductions in spending.
    Signature

    In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing. ~ Theodore Roosevelt

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9112895].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Tim,

    the first principle of civilization ought to have been, and ought still to be, that the condition of every person born into the world, after a state of civilization commences, ought not to be worse than if he had been born before that period...
    I AGREE!!!!!! OK, let me pay NO tax, like they did, and have FULL benefit of the constitution, like THEY did.
    If I get even $10 for doing NOTHING, can you really say that is worse off than THEY were? THEY got NOTHING!

    There could be no such thing as landed property originally. Man did not make the earth, and, though he had a natural right to occupy it, he had no right to locate as his property in perpetuity any part of it; neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office, from whence the first title-deeds should issue. Whence then, arose the idea of landed property? I answer as before, that when cultivation began the idea of landed property began with it, from the impossibility of separating the improvement made by cultivation from the earth itself, upon which that improvement was made...
    OK, Let me use some property in a national park! Weren't YOU AGAINST bundy? HERE, Thomas says that bundy has MORE right to the land as he has used it, and likely improved it. The federal government has NO right! Thomas makes the argument that a person that has improved the property has an unfortunate right because they have put fixtures in the land that can not be moved. These are things like water, sewer, electric, phone, homes, etc....

    To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:
    Have you READ this? Technically, I should benefit here. I don't know if I should benefit in the most literal sense, but it is likely. In the LITERAL sense, it is likely FEW here would benefit! In the literal sense, NO people here can benefit unless they can trace their family back to a time before the concept, and they owned the property then.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113028].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      income inequality
      I heard this several times today on various news networks and I was struck by how quickly a simple 2-3 word phrase becomes commonly used. To say "I am against...whatever" supposes there are others who are FOR the same thing. Is any FOR income inequality? But how equal should it be?

      Is there anyone who thinks a maid should earn the same as a doctor? Or an office worker the same as Warren Buffet? Should the person who cleans the halls of Congress be paid the same as a Congressman (well, ok, that one is debatable)?

      In the end, fairness isn’t the issue. The issue is justifying policies — government intervention, higher taxes, spending and redistribution — that can’t otherwise be easily sold. How about this for a midterm catchphrase, reflective of true circumstances — the need for a higher-skilled labor force that pits no American against another and qualifies people for jobs that are actually available: “Learning for earning.”
      Kathleen Parker: Inequality of language muddies debate - The Washington Post
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

      I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113187].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Is there anyone who thinks a maid should earn the same as a doctor? Or an office worker the same as Warren Buffet? Should the person who cleans the halls of Congress be paid the same as a Congressman?
        Apparently, many DO!

        well, ok, that one is debatable?
        Many that believe others should be paid the SAME, are OK with congress getting paid so much!

        They ALSO believe that title should be the SOLE determinant for how much one is paid, if there is ANY difference. I saw that at only ONE company and I left feeling that I was cheated out of the time for the interview. I got the job, but told them "NO THANKS!"!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114205].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Is there anyone who thinks a maid should earn the same as a doctor? Or an office worker the same as Warren Buffet? Should the person who cleans the halls of Congress be paid the same as a Congressman (well, ok, that one is debatable)?
        exactly! - there is no way that a maid should make the same money as a doctor

        I think this minimum income idea is flawed - I personally don`t like the idea of my hard-earned money going to some lazy person who doesn`t want to lift a finger to better himself/or herself.

        what I think should happen instead is reduce or eliminate the cost of post-secondary education - so that everybody has access to cheap or free education to become whatever it is they want to become. Those who don`t want the education have no one but themselves to blame if they lack the skills to get ahead. If they don't get an education - then they don't get a free handout either.

        In my opinion, the only people who should be cared for by the state are the elderly and the sick/crippled. The poor man's life can be improved with the proper educational programs - (kind of the idea of giving the man a fishing pole rather than the fish scenario)

        I believe extreme socialism/nanny state-ism is destructive - as it exists in its current form. I also think poverty is destructive and should never happen if access to education is unlimited.
        Signature
        ---------------
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473720].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Karen Blundell View Post

          what I think should happen instead is reduce or eliminate the cost of post-secondary education - so that everybody has access to cheap or free education to become whatever it is they want to become.
          I like the idea, but that would be/is socialism also.
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9473892].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I like the idea, but that would be/is socialism also.
            NOT REALLY! We could do it in a veritable blink of an eye NOW! The cost is INCREDIBLY LOW! The thing is that the "NEA" doesn't want it, etc... Did you know that MAJOR companies, industries, etc.... have been doing this at a FANTASTIC HANDICAP!? Microsoft, NASD, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE, Oracle, Redhat, Cisco, Novell, FCC Licenses, etc....

            For COLLEGE? Check out CLEP! NOW, as to that fantastic handicap? Well, that is now HISTORY!

            Even many teachers say they are glorified baby sitters. The guts of most real courses really haven't changed much. HECK, I took a HIGHSCHOOL class in computers in the 70s that would STILL be relevant TODAY! I bet it would run CIRCLES around most highschool, or lower courses TODAY. I can tell you it ran circles around some COLLEGE courses in the 1980s.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474116].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            I like the idea, but that would be/is socialism also.
            yes it is - but I think everyone should have a shot at a decent life. That makes me compassionate - not taking any political sides here because it could go there -
            I guess giving everyone a tool to make money to me is better than actually handing over the money for nothing -
            Signature
            ---------------
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474156].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author taskemann
    This won't work in practice. Just as communism never will work.

    Sitting on your arch without doing anything and receiving $33,000 a year because you don't want to work doesn't actually encourage the country's workforce to work. But of course if you're disabled and can't work, it's another story.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113610].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Floyd Fisher
      Originally Posted by taskemann View Post

      This won't work in practice. Just as communism never will work.

      Sitting on your arch without doing anything and receiving $33,000 a year because you don't want to work doesn't actually encourage the country's workforce to work. But of course if you're disabled and can't work, it's another story.
      Oh it will work all right......it's just that after implementation, prices are going to rise to a point where that $33,000 guaranteed is going to be equivalent to about $.05 USD.

      Look people, if you really are interested in helping out the middle class, and not just growing a huge government bureaucracy, then teach people not to hand all of their money over to rich people, and put aside a portion of it (like 10% or so) for the purpose of investment...a practice commonly called 'saving'.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9113988].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Floyd Fisher View Post

        Oh it will work all right......it's just that after implementation, prices are going to rise to a point where that $33,000 guaranteed is going to be equivalent to about $.05 USD.

        Look people, if you really are interested in helping out the middle class, and not just growing a huge government bureaucracy, then teach people not to hand all of their money over to rich people, and put aside a portion of it (like 10% or so) for the purpose of investment...a practice commonly called 'saving'.
        Like I said, it is now a fiat currency. So switzerland can now have hyper inflation! The way things are going, things are going to be pretty bad for the world for the foreseeable future.

        A lot of the ones that had all the hedonism ran up huge debts which has put THEM in a bad situation. Others are struggling and taking some damage to try to set things right. And the WORLD(including the US), is doing the OPPOSITE of what the US did at its founding and 1933, so the damage is easily done, and can be total.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114246].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author trustedmarketer
    You have to admire the Swiss. They have style, great chocolates, great beer, great brandy, and now great income for their citizens. What more could a person want? I can imagine Homer Simpson making himself at home there.
    Signature
    Contact me for the most Powerful Business Programs that will give you Daily Profit and the predicted huge price appreciation from Bitcoin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

    This referendum will be voted on in two or three years and if it passes it would give a guaranteed minimum income of 30,000 swiss Francs ( $33,000 ) to all citizens whether they work or not. It's an idea which dates back centuries actually to one of my favorite founding fathers Thomas Paine. More recently noble prize winning economist Milton Friedman proposed the negative income tax which is somewhat similar. What the Swiss will be voting on is something that goes further than what either proposed though.



    Inequality Fight: Swiss Will Vote on Minimum Income - Businessweek

    It's an interesting idea in many ways. It can be argued that it wouldn't discourage a desire to work and achieve because you would keep the money whether you work or not and most people will want more money to live a better life. As the article points out it would likely dramatically change the labor market among other aspects of society.

    How would it be paid for? About a 1/3 of it would come from existing social programs. Another large part would be "recouped by cuts in salaries, because the payments would replace part of existing paychecks." The remaining amount would be paid for by a consumption tax ( equally applied to all citizens usually ) and estate tax and/or tariifs.

    Very interesting, let's see what happens.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114363].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
    The Swiss had just recently rejected the 1:12 pay cap for CEOs. This is more outrageous than that. Such an initiative is better than minimum wage laws which cause unnecessary interference in the market, but $33,000 is a lot of money to just give out! The Swiss are pretty fiscally conservative and I don't see them voting for this proposal. But, I've been wrong before.

    I don't see how this is sustainable without higher taxation at least in the long run and the country is going to go through a rough face of inflation if this passes. The money given out should be enough to live on (housing + food + bills) and not something that'd have you quit your job and do nothing all day.
    Signature
    [FREE REPORT] How you could be making money using Facebook Ads today!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114505].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    If forced "sharing" was a viable form of government the USSR wouldn't have disbanded and embraced capitalism.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9114572].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    If they vote yes, I suspect a lot of people will be trying to marry Swiss citizens.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115973].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    What I think is interesting is the notion that in THIS country, if you start people off at $33,000 (or whatever number) that suddenly those who talk about "income inequality" will suddenly have nothing to complain about.

    We're a complaint driven society. People will always want what those more fortunate have. There will STILL be that inequality. Just because some would be able to afford a bigger apartment and more food doesn't mean they'll stop complaining. That's because those who have more now will still have more.

    On the other side of that coin are those who will continue to complain about "giving" money to those who have no desire to contribute.

    I also find the notion that A) there's a belief that things COULD be "fair" and B) things SHOULD be "fair" comical. There will always be those more fortunate than others, those who deserve more, those who will refuse to lift a finger, and so on. Moving the monetary starting line won't help as much as you might think - not with today's mentalities on both sides of this issue.
    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9115995].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      We're a complaint driven society. People will always want what those more fortunate have. There will STILL be that inequality. Just because some would be able to afford a bigger apartment and more food doesn't mean they'll stop complaining. That's because those who have more now will still have more.
      We sure do like to complain. Heck, even the multi billionaires complain and whine. It's crazy.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116063].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      What I think is interesting is the notion that in THIS country, if you start people off at $33,000 (or whatever number) that suddenly those who talk about "income inequality" will suddenly have nothing to complain about.

      We're a complaint driven society. People will always want what those more fortunate have. There will STILL be that inequality. Just because some would be able to afford a bigger apartment and more food doesn't mean they'll stop complaining. That's because those who have more now will still have more.

      On the other side of that coin are those who will continue to complain about "giving" money to those who have no desire to contribute.

      I also find the notion that A) there's a belief that things COULD be "fair" and B) things SHOULD be "fair" comical. There will always be those more fortunate than others, those who deserve more, those who will refuse to lift a finger, and so on. Moving the monetary starting line won't help as much as you might think - not with today's mentalities on both sides of this issue.
      Say people HERE were paid $33000 for doing NOTHING! If the economy survived and WITHOUT inflation, which is IMPOSSIBLE, a couple could EASILY stay home, have kids, homeschool, and just have fun. Do you think ANYONE would work for less than say $70,000? That would be an average of $33.65/hour. Suppose you didn't pay it? WHAT house would you stay in? Nobody would be in grocery stores, or banks! But seriously, MOST people won't work! A lot of people in the US have SAID they haven't been working because they can make enough to make it worth their while in the market.

      And if you could flip hamburgers for so much, I would probably ask for about $785K/year. Somewhere around 377/hour. That is OVER my usual bill rate, so everything else would have to go up. Don't pay me, and I'll flip hamburgers, and start my own company!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116309].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Steve - That's not equal to what the Swiss are considering. Their cost of living is so much higher than the US, you have to adjust the numbers to a percentage. In a previous post I used the percentage and it showed in the US that would equal about $16-17k per year.

        In Switzerland the proposal of $33000 is about 42% of the average income. The average income there is about double that in the US so it's not apples for apples.

        It's an interesting proposal for a small country that has the financial acumen Switzerland has shown. The biggest complaint there from bankers is "there isn't enough debt". We should have that problem!
        Signature
        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116451].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Steve - That's not equal to what the Swiss are considering. Their cost of living is so much higher than the US, you have to adjust the numbers to a percentage. In a previous post I used the percentage and it showed in the US that would equal about $16-17k per year.

          In Switzerland the proposal of $33000 is about 42% of the average income. The average income there is about double that in the US so it's not apples for apples.

          It's an interesting proposal for a small country that has the financial acumen Switzerland has shown. The biggest complaint there from bankers is "there isn't enough debt". We should have that problem!
          Doesn't matter! It is STILL a FIAT currency and they STILL need jobs and they STILL have risks/expenses! This means that a substantial raise in one area means they must raise further down. This means that if a basic cost goes up that all things made using that product or service will COST more to make. Eventually, that means their PRICE will go up. THAT starts the cycle ALL OVER AGAIN!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117404].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnTellez1965
        What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9277145].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Originally Posted by JohnTellez1965 View Post

          What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!
          Apparently it moved to Switzerland.

          Swiss voters have rejected a proposal to create what would have been the world's highest minimum wage after siding with the government and business leaders in a referendum.
          In the US the mayor of Seattle unveiled a plan for a city-wide minimum wage of $15 (£8.91) earlier this month, more than double the federal rate.
          Swiss voters reject plan to establish world's highest minimum wage | World news | The Guardian

          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278642].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

            Good grief! I see you are stll having trouble grasping that there are two different issues the Swiss proposed, one a minimum wage and the other the minimum income, which was what this thread is about. They haven't voted on the later yet. Perhaps by the time they do, sometime in the next year or two, you will understand the difference.
            Signature
            Over 50 Dating
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278813].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Good grief! I see you are stll having trouble grasping that there are two different issues the Swiss proposed, one a minimum wage and the other the minimum income, which was what this thread is about. They haven't voted on the later yet. Perhaps by the time they do, sometime in the next year or two, you will understand the difference.
              Maybe you should explain it to the Swiss.
              From the article Joe posted.
              Swiss voters reject plan to establish world's highest minimum wage

              Voters side with ministers who say raising basic annual salary for 35-hour week to £27,000 would harm small businesses
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278878].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                Maybe you should explain it to the Swiss.
                From the article Joe posted.
                Tim said there are TWO measures. One is the minimum wage, per hour. Which is this one. At least THIS can be tied to work, The OTHER is a set fee everyone gets paid for the YEAR, That is SO rife with problems, and he laughs at US if we ignore it!?!?!?!?

                SERIOUSLY tim, maybe you should go to russia, become a russian citizen, and propose your idea to Putin!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278899].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  Tim said there are TWO measures. One is the minimum wage, per hour. Which is this one. At least THIS can be tied to work, The OTHER is a set fee everyone gets paid for the YEAR, That is SO rife with problems, and he laughs at US if we ignore it!?!?!?!?

                  SERIOUSLY tim, maybe you should go to russia, become a russian citizen, and propose your idea to Putin!

                  Steve
                  I know Steve. If EVERYONE works then you have to have a min. wage to have a min. salary (what Joe's article was about).
                  The other requires a min. number of workers to support the rest of the citizenry. In that scenario if you happen to be a worker, you give all your pay to the govt. and they give you an allowance. The rest of your money goes towards the allowances of those who don't work.

                  So in reality you can only say a min. salary is tied to a min. wage if you have 100% employment.
                  If you have less then 100% employment then it's basically just welfare. As we both know welfare is just forcing someone who works to pay for someone who doesn't.
                  Signature

                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278935].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                    I know Steve. If EVERYONE works then you have to have a min. wage to have a min. salary (what Joe's article was about).
                    The other requires a min. number of workers to support the rest of the citizenry. In that scenario if you happen to be a worker, you give all your pay to the govt. and they give you an allowance. The rest of your money goes towards the allowances of those who don't work.

                    So in reality you can only say a min. salary is tied to a min. wage if you have 100% employment.
                    If you have less then 100% employment then it's basically just welfare. As we both know welfare is just forcing someone who works to pay for someone who doesn't.
                    YEAH, but welfare is *****SUPPOSED TO BE***** a BARE SUBSISTANCE level of income! That means NO cell phone. NO unlimited whatever. NO CABLE. NO TV! NO internet! NO college! NO cigarettes, etc.... You want THOSE things? Then YOU PAY! And if some bleeding heart says "What about the kids, boo hoo", GREAT! TIE IT TO WIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT is what WIC is for! Cell phones are currently tied to SNAP! SNAP is basically ALL on welfare. WIC is SUPPOSED to be "Women with Infants and Children". And hours should be LIMITED! So WIC is a subset of those on SNAP.

                    BTW you think I NEVER had to call my parents? I DID! I had to find a business, MAYBE a payphone, or a neighbor and use THEIR phone. Sometimes it was very important. Sometimes I SUFFERED! We didn't even have widely available answering machines when I was a kid. It was a LONG time before the phone companies internalized the feature and called it voice mail. When I was a kid, MOST people would NEVER know you even called if they didn't have an answering machine. HECK, when I was REALLY young, I don't even think they sold answering machines!

                    Hey, when I was a kid, society DID have remote access public international computers! Society DID have cell phones in the 1980s. Society DID have computers! Society DID have CABLE! Did I have any of that? NOPE!

                    I didn't have access to those international computers until LATER, as they were TOO EXPENSIVE! I didn't get a cellphone until like 1998 because they were too expensive! I practically FOUGHT to get a computer, and didn't get one I considered usable by today's standards until 1994 or so. I didn't get cable until the late 80s, and really only got basic cable.

                    HECK, even PROGRAMMING! I #$%^& to get my first compilers. I was ECSTATIC when I could get borland pascal for $99! I paid close to $500 for every compiler after that until Linux! Borland pascal cost $99 when it came out, but the later graphic versions cost MUCH more.

                    Anyway, minimum wage is supposed to be just that! MINIMUM!!!!! It should be ABOVE welfare, and below others. But paid BY THE HOUR OF WORK!

                    When will people realize that minimum wage hurts EVERYONE to benefit the few for a brief period of time? If minimum wage earners are saving for retirement, a home, school, etc.... The increased wage won't help. Their savings will be eaten away.

                    BTW I FINALLY found out where I stand with insurance to a degree. EVERYONE in my group must pay a 50% higher premium to keep it!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9279283].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author petermei
                      The memebers of goverment voted against...
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9279765].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      YEAH, but welfare is *****SUPPOSED TO BE***** a BARE SUBSISTANCE level of income! That means NO cell phone. NO unlimited whatever. NO CABLE. NO TV! NO internet! NO college! NO cigarettes, etc.... You want THOSE things? Then YOU PAY! And if some bleeding heart says "What about the kids, boo hoo", GREAT! TIE IT TO WIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT is what WIC is for! Cell phones are currently tied to SNAP! SNAP is basically ALL on welfare. WIC is SUPPOSED to be "Women with Infants and Children". And hours should be LIMITED! So WIC is a subset of those on SNAP.

                      BTW you think I NEVER had to call my parents? I DID! I had to find a business, MAYBE a payphone, or a neighbor and use THEIR phone. Sometimes it was very important. Sometimes I SUFFERED! We didn't even have widely available answering machines when I was a kid. It was a LONG time before the phone companies internalized the feature and called it voice mail. When I was a kid, MOST people would NEVER know you even called if they didn't have an answering machine. HECK, when I was REALLY young, I don't even think they sold answering machines!

                      Hey, when I was a kid, society DID have remote access public international computers! Society DID have cell phones in the 1980s. Society DID have computers! Society DID have CABLE! Did I have any of that? NOPE!

                      I didn't have access to those international computers until LATER, as they were TOO EXPENSIVE! I didn't get a cellphone until like 1998 because they were too expensive! I practically FOUGHT to get a computer, and didn't get one I considered usable by today's standards until 1994 or so. I didn't get cable until the late 80s, and really only got basic cable.

                      HECK, even PROGRAMMING! I #$%^& to get my first compilers. I was ECSTATIC when I could get borland pascal for $99! I paid close to $500 for every compiler after that until Linux! Borland pascal cost $99 when it came out, but the later graphic versions cost MUCH more.

                      Anyway, minimum wage is supposed to be just that! MINIMUM!!!!! It should be ABOVE welfare, and below others. But paid BY THE HOUR OF WORK!

                      When will people realize that minimum wage hurts EVERYONE to benefit the few for a brief period of time? If minimum wage earners are saving for retirement, a home, school, etc.... The increased wage won't help. Their savings will be eaten away.

                      BTW I FINALLY found out where I stand with insurance to a degree. EVERYONE in my group must pay a 50% higher premium to keep it!

                      Steve
                      Steve there was a show on PBS last night about the projects (remember those) and welfare.
                      It was mostly made up of interviews and comments from the people who first lived in them.
                      A family couldn't move in to the projects if the husband was able bodied. The women where actually told by the welfare departments to leave their husbands and just bring their children. They also had agents that would go into the projects at different times of the night and search the apartments, questioning the children, looking for the husbands and fathers.
                      At first the people who moved in where not allowed to have phones or TV's.
                      After the projects where built the govt. decided it couldn't afford the maintenance and upkeep so the buildings ended up with garbage all over, broken water pipes, no heat, etc.
                      The people where eventually allowed to have TV's and phones, but by that time the projects where a disgrace.
                      The interviews where with people from many different cities, so it wasn't just one place but all of them.
                      I remember the projects in Troy that where like that.
                      The whole idea was really about keeping a group of people contained in one place and under govt. control.
                      Signature

                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280066].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                        Steve there was a show on PBS last night about the projects (remember those) and welfare.
                        It was mostly made up of interviews and comments from the people who first lived in them.
                        A family couldn't move in to the projects if the husband was able bodied. The women where actually told by the welfare departments to leave their husbands and just bring their children. They also had agents that would go into the projects at different times of the night and search the apartments, questioning the children, looking for the husbands and fathers.
                        At first the people who moved in where not allowed to have phones or TV's.
                        After the projects where built the govt. decided it couldn't afford the maintenance and upkeep so the buildings ended up with garbage all over, broken water pipes, no heat, etc.
                        The people where eventually allowed to have TV's and phones, but by that time the projects where a disgrace.
                        The interviews where with people from many different cities, so it wasn't just one place but all of them.
                        I remember the projects in Troy that where like that.
                        The whole idea was really about keeping a group of people contained in one place and under govt. control.
                        I wasn't saying that they shouldn't have TV,phones, etc... In fact, they SHOULD have a basic land line. I was merely saying that the US taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. The desires of the non workers do NOT justify the enslavement and burglary of the workers.

                        As for garbage all over, broken water pipes, etc? I have been in MANY places, and NEVER saw a broken pipe! The CLOSEST I have even HEARD of such a thing was in Virginia(IIRC) because some idiot in the GOVERNMENT decided to trust polybutylene! They found out a few years ago that it DEGRADES!!!!!!!
                        So HOW did the garbage and broken pipes come to be? I was in South Central LA once and the person we were visiting asked us to LEAVE! WHY? She showed us the BULLET HOLES around her door, and simply said it wasn't safe. The people that LIVED there did that sort of thing.

                        So what should we have? A 365/7/24 maid and janitorial service?

                        As for what they told the women? The men HAVE been expected to work. I don't believe men are allowed under WIC. It seems men are the only ones SPECIFICALLY excluded. What should we say? That if he doesn't want to work that all should pay for it? And YOU talk to ME about control? I could tell you stories of what I am doing now to get to work.

                        OK, I want $20,000,000 in CURRENT dollars! By that, I mean if inflation goes up to 1000%, you owe me another $200,000,000! OK, where do I collect what I desire? BTW! This *******WAS******* declared a basic right in 1935! I only want my due! OK, OK, you can pay me in monthly installments, as agreed! Currently, that would be about $111111.11/month! Of course this is based on my OLD projection of what will be needed. By then, it COULD be well over a million A MONTH! Still, the current estimate is 100 times what they generally pay. The HIGHEST they claim to pay is a fraction of what I make.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280254].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          I wasn't saying that they shouldn't have TV,phones, etc... In fact, they SHOULD have a basic land line. I was merely saying that the US taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. The desires of the non workers do NOT justify the enslavement and burglary of the workers.

                          As for garbage all over, broken water pipes, etc? I have been in MANY places, and NEVER saw a broken pipe! The CLOSEST I have even HEARD of such a thing was in Virginia(IIRC) because some idiot in the GOVERNMENT decided to trust polybutylene! They found out a few years ago that it DEGRADES!!!!!!!
                          So HOW did the garbage and broken pipes come to be? I was in South Central LA once and the person we were visiting asked us to LEAVE! WHY? She showed us the BULLET HOLES around her door, and simply said it wasn't safe. The people that LIVED there did that sort of thing.

                          So what should we have? A 365/7/24 maid and janitorial service?

                          As for what they told the women? The men HAVE been expected to work. I don't believe men are allowed under WIC. It seems men are the only ones SPECIFICALLY excluded. What should we say? That if he doesn't want to work that all should pay for it? And YOU talk to ME about control? I could tell you stories of what I am doing now to get to work.

                          OK, I want $20,000,000 in CURRENT dollars! By that, I mean if inflation goes up to 1000%, you owe me another $200,000,000! OK, where do I collect what I desire? BTW! This *******WAS******* declared a basic right in 1935! I only want my due! OK, OK, you can pay me in monthly installments, as agreed! Currently, that would be about $111111.11/month! Of course this is based on my OLD projection of what will be needed. By then, it COULD be well over a million A MONTH! Still, the current estimate is 100 times what they generally pay. The HIGHEST they claim to pay is a fraction of what I make.

                          Steve
                          No Steve the govt. wouldn't allow them to have TV's or phones. When they where finally allowed they had to pay for them themselves.
                          The other problems where caused from lack of maintenance personal. At first they had people doing the job, but soon decided the money was needed else where and simply didn't put any money in the budgets for them.
                          We're talking about St. Louis, Chicago, Detroit, NYC, etc. This is also back in the 60's. We had three or four of those high rise "projects in Troy that the same things happened to. They got so bad they where torn down and the people relocated. We have a couple "projects left in Troy that are built like apartment complexes, both are high crime areas.
                          They also did a peace not long ago on the depression and the first min. wage laws of the 30's. At that time whites where under employed compared to blacks. The min' wage law was an attempt to reverse that.
                          The first federal minimum-wage laws were created with the specific intent to prevent blacks from breaking into the labor market and obtaining better opportunities for themselves. New raises in the minimum wage may not carry the same intent, but they will undoubtedly have the same effect.Minimum Wage Hurts Unskilled Black Workers
                          Not much has really changed in that regard. You look at the real unemployment rate today or U6 as the Bureau of labor statistics calls it and we are still over 12%. Chart: The real unemployment rate?
                          Then look at the unemployment rate for teens, blacks, and Hispanics (not U6 numbers).
                          Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (5.9 percent), adult women (5.7 percent), teenagers (19.2 percent), whites (5.4 percent), blacks (11.5 percent), and Hispanics (7.7 percent) showed little or no change in May. The jobless rate for Asians was 5.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year earlier.Employment Situation Summary
                          Now looking back at history who will raising the min. wage really help.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9281046].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  ...and he laughs at US if we ignore it!?!?!?!?
                  Well, I don't know who the "us" are in your post, but I must admit I do find myself laughing at many of your futile attempts at intelligent conversation. However, because of your frequently incoherant, long winded, mistake ridden and off topic rants, I usually don't read your posts at all. I am not a glutton for punishment.
                  Signature
                  Over 50 Dating
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280456].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Well, I don't know who the "us" are in your post, but I must admit I do find myself laughing at many of your futile attempts at intelligent conversation. However, because of your frequently incoherant, long winded, mistake ridden and off topic rants, I usually don't read your posts at all. I am not a glutton for punishment.
                    Thanks for the compliment! Seriously though. Russia has had many ideas like yours, and Putin WAS in the KGB! He may LOVE your ideas! You can go THERE and live! Arianna may ALSO want to go there!

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280996].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
              I fully understand the (very little) difference. I also understand that, whether minimum wage or minimum income, they both come from the same entitlement mentality.

              I also understand that those with an entitlement mentality often refuse to pay the price for their own liberty, which is to exercise their own personal responsibility.

              Joe Mobley

              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Good grief! I see you are stll having trouble grasping that there are two different issues the Swiss proposed, one a minimum wage and the other the minimum income, which was what this thread is about. They haven't voted on the later yet. Perhaps by the time they do, sometime in the next year or two, you will understand the difference.
              Signature

              .

              Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9278960].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                I fully understand the (very little) difference. I also understand that, whether minimum wage or minimum income, they both come from the same entitlement mentality.

                I also understand that those with an entitlement mentality often refuse to pay the price for their own liberty, which is to exercise their own personal responsibility.

                Joe Mobley
                I really don't think you do understand, otherwise why would you reply to John's post, which was clearly about the minumum income idea the Swiss are proposing, with a link to the minumum wage proposal already defeated?

                John's post was "What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!" People who work for a minimum wage earn their own money. I bet even you Joe, at one time worked for minimum wage. Did that mean you didn't earn your own money and had an entitlement mentality? Of course not. That's just ridiculous. You are taking your fixation with this "entitlement mentality" cliche/meme too far and using it for absurd reasoning.

                People who work for minimum wage and who would like their income to at least stay up with the cost of living are not refusing to pay the price for their own liberty or shirking personal responsibility and they do not possess an entitlement mentality! Geesh. That kind of thinking is ludicrous, narrow minded and just plain lazy.
                Signature
                Over 50 Dating
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9280445].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  John's post was "What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!" People who work for a minimum wage earn their own money.
                  NOPE, they DON'T!

                  I bet even you Joe, at one time worked for minimum wage.
                  Possibly! I did TOO! But I NEVER expected to LIVE on it!

                  Did that mean you didn't earn your own money and had an entitlement mentality?
                  NOPE! I KNEW I was a KID working for a KIDS WAGES!

                  You are taking your fixation with this "entitlement mentality" cliche/meme too far and using it for absurd reasoning.
                  You say it is absurd, but the fact that you are even discussing it now PROVES it ISN'T! If raising the rate is the answer, why didn't it work DECADES ago?

                  People who work for minimum wage and who would like their income to at least stay up with the cost of living are ... refusing to pay the price for their own liberty ... shirking personal responsibility and they ....... possess an entitlement mentality! ....... That kind of thinking is ludicrous, narrow minded and just plain lazy.
                  There, I corrected that for you. At the current rate, viable work will just get harder to get, ESPECIALLY for younger people.

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9474140].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
          Originally Posted by JohnTellez1965 View Post

          What happened to the satisfaction of earning your own money!
          Nothing whatsoever.

          If you want anything beyond the basic necessities, as most people do, you have to earn the extra money to cover it. There's certainly nothing wrong with that idea.

          And if you have bad luck, at least you'll have enough money for the basic necessities while you get back on your feet.
          Signature

          Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
          _______________________________________________
          "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9281648].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I guess everyone wants to follow greece down the sewer!

    Swiss to vote on world's highest minimum wage. A proposed minimum wage of 22 francs an hour ($24.80) would have a damaging effect on Switzerland's job market, says Swiss economics minister Johann Schneider-Ammann, as voters prepare to decide.
    Swiss to vote on world's highest minimum wage - The Local
    First of all, this means you would have to work 1364 hours just to break even. That is about 26 hours per week. The maximum hours per week is 45 hours! That means a person earning minimum wage working the maximum hours every day would make only 73 percent more than the laziest person in town. Of course you likely can't do that because of all the holidays. HECK, you COULD lose 270 or more hours!

    I wonder what they will have to charge for a rolex NOW!

    As for ME? Maybe I will try to see if can line up a gig there. If I made the same there relative to the market here, AND THE CURRENCY STAYED AT THE SAME VALUE(which IS likely unlikely), then could work 3 years and get a million dollars! 3-6 years, and maybe I could retire.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116291].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author candoit2
    The Swiss had nothing on Libya before we of course had to put a stop to that.(Sarcasm)

    How the life in Libya was under Gaddafi's rule:

    1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

    2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.

    3. All newlyweds in Libya receive US$ 64,000 from the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.

    4. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Qaddafi only 25% of Libyans are literate. Today the figure is 83%.

    5. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kick- start their farms – all for free.

    6. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it – not only free but they get US $2, 300/mth accommodation and car allowance.

    7. If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.

    8. The price of petrol in Libya was $0. 14 per liter. which made it cheaper than water!

    9. If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.

    10. A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.

    11. A mother who gave birth to a child receive US $5,000.

    12. 40 loaves of bread in Libya costs $ 0.15.

    13. Qaddafi carried out the world’s largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country. (Bombed and destroyed by NATO)

    Good for the Swiss if it's citizens get that $33,000, but they and our Gov'ts should be capable of this or more if Libya was doing all it was.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9116455].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by AaronJones View Post

      The Swiss had nothing on Libya before we of course had to put a stop to that.(Sarcasm)

      How the life in Libya was under Gaddafi's rule:

      1. There is no electricity bill in Libya; electricity is free for all its citizens.

      2. There is no interest on loans, banks in Libya are state-owned and loans given to all its citizens at 0% interest by law.
      So a person could take out a loan, buy a store, and run everything in the store full bore? Hard to believe they could do that for long.

      3. All newlyweds in Libya receive US$ 64,000 from the government to buy their first apartment so to help start up the family.
      $64,000 for an APARTMENT? YIKES! Why is the APARTMENT so expensive!

      4. Education and medical treatments are free in Libya. Before Qaddafi only 25% of Libyans are literate. Today the figure is 83%.
      OK, why is the figure only 83%? Are both counted on the same basis? SOME such countries wouldn't educate or count females.

      5. Should Libyans want to take up farming career, they would receive farming land, a farming house, equipment, seeds and livestock to kick- start their farms - all for free.
      They probably did something similar at one time in the US. They DID actually have a policy of giving indentured servants 50 acres at the end of their term.

      6. If Libyans cannot find the education or medical facilities they need in Libya, the government funds them to go abroad for it - not only free but they get US $2, 300/mth accommodation and car allowance.
      YIKES! Why didn't more libyans go abroad? WHY are they so angry?

      7. If a Libyan buys a car, the government subsidized 50% of the price.
      How much of that is what THEY put in?

      8. The price of petrol in Libya was $0. 14 per liter. which made it cheaper than water!
      Understandable. Gas in the US STILL only costs a little more than a dollar per gallon! That is maybe $.27 per liter. and that is AFTER all the shipping, etc....

      OH YEAH, people may balk with my claims, etc... You may search and find gas costs more. But HALF of that is DIRECT TAXES! NOBODY could figure how all the indirect taxes add to the other half.

      10. A portion of Libyan oil sale is, credited directly to the bank accounts of all Libyan citizens.
      Is this in addition to the other things? I know another country in the middle east did this ALSO.

      Good for the Swiss if it's citizens get that $33,000, but they and our Gov'ts should be capable of this or more if Libya was doing all it was.
      Well, Libya IS an OIL nation getting a lot of money from that. The US COULD get money in the same way, but current laws FORBID it, and we have FAR more people.

      Bear in mind, libya is NOT peaceful. As for NATO bombing that waterway? That is AGAINST NATOS policies *******UNLESS******* it is an enemy nation or stealing from member nations or destabilizing the region in which case such a thing should be a PRIMARY TARGET!

      As for switzerland? Wait for a decade after it passes, THEN we can talk.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117468].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        As for switzerland? Wait for a decade after it passes, THEN we can talk.

        Steve
        Knowing how the US is these days, if it passes in Switzerland, is hugely successful and all other advanced countries adopt the same idea and are also successful, the US would still wait another 6 decades or so to even start talking about trying it.
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117915].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rwbovee
    This is a good idea here. It should be that.
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117688].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Here's an interview with one of the people behind this referendum. He actually says it isn't about class struggle, left or right, etc...

      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117791].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
        Tim,

        Why do you think a government imposed minimum salary is a good idea?

        Joe Mobley
        Signature

        .

        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9117902].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

          Tim,

          Why do you think a government imposed minimum salary is a good idea?

          Joe Mobley


          It's not a minimum salary Joe. It's a minimum income. Big difference.
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118118].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
            Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

            Tim,

            Why do you think a government imposed minimum salary is a good idea?

            Joe Mobley
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            It's not a minimum salary Joe. It's a minimum income. Big difference.
            Why do you think a government imposed minimum income is a good idea?

            Joe Mobley
            Signature

            .

            Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118241].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            It's not a minimum salary Joe. It's a minimum income. Big difference.
            Tim - you avoided the basic question though

            Why DO you think it's a good idea? I'd like to hear more arguments for this.

            Economically speaking, I couldn't say if I like the idea or not, since I don't know what it will do or why it's good. My hesitation would be for the same reason as universal health care - I simply don't trust our government to do it right. We're too politicized. Things tend to be more about party than right or wrong, etc. THAT'S why it wouldn't even get to the discussion phase after 6 decades, like you said.

            Anyway - shoot...
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118250].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              Tim - you avoided the basic question though

              Why DO you think it's a good idea? I'd like to hear more arguments for this.

              Economically speaking, I couldn't say if I like the idea or not, since I don't know what it will do or why it's good. My hesitation would be for the same reason as universal health care - I simply don't trust our government to do it right. We're too politicized. Things tend to be more about party than right or wrong, etc. THAT'S why it wouldn't even get to the discussion phase after 6 decades, like you said.

              Anyway - shoot...
              Joe basically asked the same question as before. I just wanted to get him to ask it again.

              As I said before, the idea is interesting to me for several reasons. Kay and I have pointed out a few reasons why it may make sense already. The Thomas Paine quotes should give you an idea of why this appeals to me also. Poverty, income inequality, social security ( not the retirement system ), a desire to improve society, a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.

              However, I'm all for Switzerland testing the waters, so to speak, with this referendum. Let them see how it works first hand. God knows we in the US wouldn't ever be a leader in doing anything like this any more.
              Signature
              Over 50 Dating
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118293].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                Joe basically asked the same question as before. I just wanted to get him to ask it again.

                As I said before, the idea is interesting to me for several reasons. Kay and I have pointed out a few reasons why it may make sense already. The Thomas Paine quotes should give you an idea of why this appeals to me also. Poverty, income inequality, social security ( not the retirement system ), a desire to improve society, a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.

                However, I'm all for Switzerland testing the waters, so to speak, with this referendum. Let them see how it works first hand. God knows we in the US wouldn't ever be a leader in doing anything like this any more.
                I can see your points to a point. On the issue of "income inequality" I responded above as to why having a starting minimum would not eradicate people claiming inequality. There will ALWAYS be an equality so even adding that to the mix is pointless. Or rather it's simply used as something for one side to point to about the other.

                The dissatisfaction - that may or may not be as bad as it's made out. Depends on who you talk to (opinions) so that should be left out of the argument as well.

                If there's an argument to be made, it should be about verifiable facts. Me personally, I have not a care in the world that there are people out there who make more than me and many who make less than me. Fairness is a point of view, not a fact. Things will never be fair. Even if everyone made the same amount of money, there will always be those who work harder than others - so THEY will complain about fairness and inequality.

                Thomas Paine - I'd have to go back and read more of his writings, but I think you really can't know what he would be like today since the circumstances and society are radically different today than they were when he was alive. I have radically different ideas at 49 than I did at 19, 29, etc.

                So for me, this has to make economic sense all by iteself. Save the emotional and opinionated arguments because you'd never get a consensus based on that. At least, I don't think you can.

                Switzerland testing is a good idea, but it still wouldn't tell us one bit how it would work here. We are different societies, much larger population, government, ideologies...you get the idea. Again - look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

                Perhaps my outlook is cynical to a degree - but really, I think it's just our reality.
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118336].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  I was saying why I am interested in this idea Mike. I don't think this one idea would solve what I perceive to be a problem with income inequality. The same thing with my dissatisfaction with the direction the US and the world are going. These are reasons I am interested in the idea though.

                  Regarding verifiable facts, I don't think we will know those until one country or state tries something like this. That's why I say go for it Switzerland!

                  Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                  I can see your points to a point. On the issue of "income inequality" I responded above as to why having a starting minimum would not eradicate people claiming inequality. There will ALWAYS be an equality so even adding that to the mix is pointless. Or rather it's simply used as something for one side to point to about the other.

                  The dissatisfaction - that may or may not be as bad as it's made out. Depends on who you talk to (opinions) so that should be left out of the argument as well.

                  If there's an argument to be made, it should be about verifiable facts. Me personally, I have not a care in the world that there are people out there who make more than me and many who make less than me. Fairness is a point of view, not a fact. Things will never be fair. Even if everyone made the same amount of money, there will always be those who work harder than others - so THEY will complain about fairness and inequality.

                  Thomas Paine - I'd have to go back and read more of his writings, but I think you really can't know what he would be like today since the circumstances and society are radically different today than they were when he was alive. I have radically different ideas at 49 than I did at 19, 29, etc.

                  So for me, this has to make economic sense all by iteself. Save the emotional and opinionated arguments because you'd never get a consensus based on that. At least, I don't think you can.

                  Switzerland testing is a good idea, but it still wouldn't tell us one bit how it would work here. We are different societies, much larger population, government, ideologies...you get the idea. Again - look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

                  Perhaps my outlook is cynical to a degree - but really, I think it's just our reality.
                  Signature
                  Over 50 Dating
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118401].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                    Just for a point of clarity, you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy with a Socialist form of government?

                    Joe Mobley

                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    The same thing with my dissatisfaction with the direction the US and the world are going. These are reasons I am interested in the idea though.
                    Signature

                    .

                    Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118559].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                      Just for a point of clarity, you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy with a Socialist form of government?

                      Joe Mobley
                      Socialism isn't a form of government.
                      Signature
                      Over 50 Dating
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118575].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Socialism isn't a form of government.
                        Sure it is.
                        a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies

                        any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

                        Socialism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118594].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                          Sure it is.
                          Socialism is generally considered an economic system. The two main types of economic systems are socialism and capitalism, however almost all countries have a mixture of the two, including all democratic countries that I can think of.

                          Joe inferred that if this referendum in Switzerland was passed that somehow they wouldn't be a democracy anymore which just isn't true. If they passed it and it didn't work out like they thought it would they could use their form of government, which is a direct democracy in the instance of these referendums, and remove it from their constitution.

                          The US has many socialistic parts of it's economic system such as social security, medicare, the military etc... but it's form of government is a constitutional republic.
                          Signature
                          Over 50 Dating
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118654].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Socialism is generally considered an economic system. The two main types of economic systems are socialism and capitalism, however almost all countries have a mixture of the two, including all democratic countries that I can think of.

                            Joe inferred that if this referendum in Switzerland was passed that somehow they wouldn't be a democracy anymore which just isn't true. If they passed it and it didn't work out like they thought it would they could use their form of government, which is a direct democracy in the instance of these referendums, and remove it from their constitution.

                            The US has many socialistic parts of it's economic system such as social security, medicare, the military etc... but it's form of government is a constitutional republic.
                            I don't look at it as an economic system myself, but that all doesn't matter.
                            I'd say with the exception of the military that those programs you listed are more social programs then socialistic. They are in reality subsidies to the American people.
                            Government run industries (Socialistic) simply replace whoever is running the industry with government officials.
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118786].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author garyv
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Socialism is generally considered an economic system. The two main types of economic systems are socialism and capitalism, however almost all countries have a mixture of the two, including all democratic countries that I can think of.
                            Socialism is an economic - "government" system. Who do you think controls goods and services in a socialist system? - So there's no way you can say that it's not a form of government. Of course it is. Why do you think we're having such a hard time accepting it here?

                            Yes it's an economic system, but you're misinformed if you really think it's not also a government system. - In our form of Republic, the people control the government. That ceases to exist in a socialist economy.

                            Of course as you and several others here have said - and I agree with - the people haven't controlled the government for some time now.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120135].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                              Socialism is an economic - "government" system. Who do you think controls goods and services in a socialist system? - So there's no way you can say that it's not a form of government. Of course it is. Why do you think we're having such a hard time accepting it here?

                              Yes it's an economic system, but you're misinformed if you really think it's not also a government system. - In our form of Republic, the people control the government. That ceases to exist in a socialist economy.

                              Of course as you and several others here have said - and I agree with - the people haven't controlled the government for some time now.
                              The problem with a socialist government running everything in an industry is that they think everything i only 1 level deep! Employees want more money? PAY THEM! OH, we don't have enough? RAISE TAXES! OH, we STILL don't have enough? BORROW!

                              They NEVER realize that the first leads to the second, which affects the 1st, and it leads to the third which can destroy the nation, along with the first 2.

                              It isn't even a simple theory! It happened over 1000 years ago, over 100 years ago, and even within the past year. The US is simply isolated by a few tricks and lies, but the tricks are drying up, and there is a court case on the FEDERAL supreme courts schedule that ay remove some of the lies.

                              If the socialist government merely sets unrealistic parameters, the effects can be similar and most can lie while stating "honestly" that they know nothing about it!

                              Steve
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120357].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                              In our form of Republic, the people control the government. That ceases to exist in a socialist economy.
                              It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.

                              What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

                              Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

                              It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

                              Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

                              Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..

                              It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

                              Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

                              Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

                              An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

                              Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

                              The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.
                              Signature
                              Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                              So that blind people can hate them as well.
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120903].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.

                                What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

                                Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

                                It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

                                Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

                                Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..

                                It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

                                Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

                                Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

                                An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

                                Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

                                The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.
                                You might want to read this article on Sweden.
                                It was not socialist policies that turned Sweden into one of the world's richest countries. When Sweden got rich, it had one of the most open and deregulated economies in the world, and taxes were lower than in the United States and most other western countries. The Social Democrats kept most of those policies intact until the 1970s, when they thought that those excellent foundations--unprecedented wealth, a strong work ethic, an educated work force, world-class exports industries, and a relatively honest bureaucracy--were so stable that the government could tax and spend and build a generous cradle-to-grave welfare state on them.
                                They couldn't. At least not without costs. Because that welfare state began to erode the conditions that had made the model viable in the first place. And the fourth richest country became the 14th richest within three decades.http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/how-laissez-faire-made-sweden-rich
                                Signature

                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120945].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                  You might want to read this article on Sweden.
                                  From a site called libertarianism.org, no thanks.

                                  I can probably tell you exactly what it contains without ever having to look at it.

                                  Some valid points wrapped up in a whole lot of discredited Randian ideology.

                                  As I said, no thanks.
                                  Signature
                                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121052].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                    Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                    From a site called libertarianism.org, no thanks.

                                    I can probably tell you exactly what it contains without ever having to look at it.

                                    Some valid points wrapped up in a whole lot of discredited Randian ideology.

                                    As I said, no thanks.
                                    Typical.
                                    Actually it's just the history of the Swedish govt. over the last 200 years.
                                    Signature

                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121066].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                      Typical.
                                      Actually it's just the history of the Swedish govt. over the last 200 years.
                                      Actually it's a libertarian site cherry picking facts to push its own agenda, you know just like FoxNews and MSNBC do.

                                      To blame the "fall" of Sweden on its welfare system is at best, part of the truth.

                                      The main reason it has fallen is that countries who weren't in the running previously have risen dramatically over the last two decades. (ie Brazil, Russia, China, India, Indonesia, etc.).

                                      To give another example. Australia used to be the 8th biggest economy in the world. Now it is 15th. Is that because of Australia's "socialist" policies?

                                      No, as Australia was one of the few countries not to be affected by the Financial meltdown of 2008 onwards. Our economy actually grew during that period.

                                      It's because of the growing middle class of developing countries with much bigger populations than Australia causing their economies to grow faster than Australia's.

                                      But, back to the question I raised earlier:

                                      Was Sweden's fall from 4th to 14th place caused by it implementing "socialist policies", or the rapid rise of developing nations economies?
                                      Signature
                                      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                      So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121239].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                        Actually it's a libertarian site cherry picking facts to push its own agenda, you know just like FoxNews and MSNBC do.

                                        To blame the "fall" of Sweden on its welfare system is at best, part of the truth.

                                        The main reason it has fallen is that countries who weren't in the running previously have risen dramatically over the last two decades. (ie Brazil, Russia, China, India, Indonesia, etc.).

                                        To give another example. Australia used to be the 8th biggest economy in the world. Now it is 15th. Is that because of Australia's "socialist" policies?

                                        No, as Australia was one of the few countries not to be affected by the Financial meltdown of 2008 onwards. Our economy actually grew during that period.

                                        It's because of the growing middle class of developing countries with much bigger populations than Australia causing their economies to grow faster than Australia's.

                                        But, back to the question I raised earlier:

                                        Was Sweden's fall from 4th to 14th place caused by it implementing "socialist policies", or the rapid rise of developing nations economies?
                                        So you still haven't read the article.
                                        Get back to me when you do.
                                        Signature

                                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121247].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                          Get back to me when you do.
                                          I have now read it. Sweden's rise was due to industrialisation, and a set of policies which allowed that.

                                          What works to establish an industrialised economy doesn't necessarily work once the economy has become industrialised.

                                          Or to put it in a simpler way, what works to get a house built is different to what's needed to maintain it. Different, although aligned, skills and policies are required.

                                          We also need to understand why the "Welfare State" was allowed to flourish, particularly after World War II.

                                          Government's around the world were shit scared of the types of extreme politics that developed in the build up to WWII. As extremes on both ends (right AND left) of the spectrum flourish in places with huge discrepancies of wealth between the haves and have-nots, those governments introduced systems that enabled even those at the bottom of the pile to enjoy some sort of quality of life. The money to provide those at the bottom with this was obviously taken from the those at the top of the tree.

                                          We can see the outcome of destroying that "safety-net" is having with extremists from both ends beginning to rise again.

                                          Anyway, now that I've read your article, can you answer the question I posed?
                                          Signature
                                          Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                          So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121299].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                            Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                            I have now read it. Sweden's rise was due to industrialisation, and a set of policies which allowed that.

                                            What works to establish an industrialised economy doesn't necessarily work once the economy has become industrialised.

                                            Or to put it in a simpler way, what works to get a house built is different to what's needed to maintain it. Different, although aligned, skills and policies are required.

                                            We also need to understand why the "Welfare State" was allowed to flourish, particularly after World War II.

                                            Government's around the world were shit scared of the types of extreme politics that developed in the build up to WWII. As extremes on both ends (right AND left) of the spectrum flourish in places with huge discrepancies of wealth between the haves and have-nots, those governments introduced systems that enabled even those at the bottom of the pile to enjoy some sort of quality of life. The money to provide those at the bottom with this was obviously taken from the those at the top of the tree.

                                            We can see the outcome of destroying that "safety-net" is having with extremists from both ends beginning to rise again.

                                            Anyway, now that I've read your article, can you answer the question I posed?
                                            I think eliminating what made them strong and going to a tax and spend welfare state had more to do with their decline then anything else.
                                            Signature

                                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122061].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                              I think eliminating what made them strong and going to a tax and spend welfare state had more to do with their decline then anything else.
                                              So, still nothing to do with the rise of other nations pushing them down the rankings then?
                                              Signature
                                              Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                              So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122778].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                                So, still nothing to do with the rise of other nations pushing them down the rankings then?
                                                Not really. But since you think that was the cause, why did the other countries rise in rankings?
                                                Why did Sweden slip after they changed the way they did things that put them in the number 4 spot?
                                                If you make a cake with all the right ingredients and it is the best cake and you then change the ingredients and it sucks, is it because you changed the ingredients or because other bakers suddenly became better cake makers?
                                                Same goes for countries. If you build a strong country on a certain set of principles and then change those principles causing a weaker country, is it because suddenly other countries became stronger or because your new principles made yours weaker.
                                                It's easy to blame it on others then to except the consequences of your actions.
                                                Signature

                                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122796].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                  Not really. But since you think that was the cause, why did the other countries rise in rankings?
                                                  Because developed nations, especially America, outsourced their labour to the developing nations, enabling a middle class to develop in those nations.

                                                  I'd be interested to hear your views on what I posted about people who are working and STILL need a handout in order to eat.

                                                  Is that right? Is it wrong? Is it their fault? Is it the employers fault? Is it the governments fault? Is it just an inevitable outcome of laissez faire economics?

                                                  I'd like to read your views on that if you can spare the time.
                                                  Signature
                                                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122838].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                    Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                                    Because developed nations, especially America, outsourced their labour to the developing nations, enabling a middle class to develop in those nations.

                                                    I'd be interested to hear your views on what I posted about people who are working and STILL need a handout in order to eat.

                                                    Is that right? Is it wrong? Is it their fault? Is it the employers fault? Is it the governments fault? Is it just an inevitable outcome of laissez faire economics?

                                                    I'd like to read your views on that if you can spare the time.
                                                    I don't think it's right at all. But I believe high taxes and government interference have a lot to do with the problem.
                                                    For an example. I have a friend who runs his own landscaping company. He isn't trying to become rich, he just wants a comfortable living and to be able to help out his friends who need work.
                                                    This year his federal taxes are so high he can't afford to keep the same number of workers he usually does and he's thinking of giving up the business and get a job.
                                                    Another friend owns a restaurant, because of his tax increase and other fees it's either no raises for his staff or close the doors.
                                                    I could go on all day with this kind of stuff.
                                                    High taxes and stiff regulations don't create jobs and they don't improve the standard of living.
                                                    Now I'm not saying there should be no taxes or regulations. Just that the regulations should benefit people and business. If a business is spewing out pollution, regulate against that. But when you come up with regulations that do more harm then good, you don't need those regulations.
                                                    Like the new one the FDA has come up with that would require breweries to package their spent grains before they give them to farmers.
                                                    When a business has to choose between paying exorbitant taxes or give their employees a raise, maybe taxes are to high.
                                                    Bottom line is the more business has to spend on taxes and regulations the less it has for the employees.
                                                    Signature

                                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122915].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                      Bottom line is the more business has to spend on taxes and regulations the less it has for the employees.
                                                      If the taxes and regulations were brought in after the business was started, then I thoroughly agree with you.

                                                      If they were in place before the business was started, then I disagree profusely.

                                                      Before you start any business, you need to do a serious budget taking into account all the relevant costs. If someone starts out and then complains about laws that are already in place, the business owner is an idiot who should never have started a business in the first place.

                                                      Anyway, this has been a fascinating discussion and I thank you for your input, and allowing me to respond in a similar fashion. If these kind of discussions were all conducted in a similar respectful fashion, the mods job would be made so much easier .

                                                      Anyway, back to the OP. It's up to the people of Switzerland to determine how they live. If it doesn't do any damage to the Swiss economy or society as a whole, and has no impact on other nations, then I say go for it.

                                                      It's up to the Swiss people to decide what works for them, not an American or Australian.
                                                      Signature
                                                      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                                      So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122991].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                                        If the taxes and regulations were brought in after the business was started, then I thoroughly agree with you.

                                                        If they were in place before the business was started, then I disagree profusely.

                                                        Before you start any business, you need to do a serious budget taking into account all the relevant costs. If someone starts out and then complains about laws that are already in place, the business owner is an idiot who should never have started a business in the first place.

                                                        Anyway, this has been a fascinating discussion and I thank you for your input, and allowing me to respond in a similar fashion. If these kind of discussions were all conducted in a similar respectful fashion, the mods job would be made so much easier .

                                                        Anyway, back to the OP. It's up to the people of Switzerland to determine how they live. If it doesn't do any damage to the Swiss economy or society as a whole, and has no impact on other nations, then I say go for it.

                                                        It's up to the Swiss people to decide what works for them, not an American or Australian.
                                                        No I agree with that. I've started a couple of businesses in the past and decided not to start others.The ones I didn't start had to do with a few factors including existing regulations.
                                                        If I had problems with existing regulations I'd ask myself if I really wanted that business and I'd try to have the regulations changed before starting it.
                                                        I think we are over regulated, but instead of just ending them all they need to be looked at one by one.
                                                        I agree 1,000% with your comment on Switzerland, it's up to them not us.
                                                        If they do it and it works, good for them.
                                                        If they do it and it doesn't, at least they gave it a try.
                                                        Signature

                                                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9123019].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                                        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                                        If the taxes and regulations were brought in after the business was started, then I thoroughly agree with you.

                                                        If they were in place before the business was started, then I disagree profusely.

                                                        Before you start any business, you need to do a serious budget taking into account all the relevant costs. If someone starts out and then complains about laws that are already in place, the business owner is an idiot who should never have started a business in the first place.
                                                        Well, there was NO law here. You used to be able to feed animals ANYTHING apparently, WITHOUT REGULATION! They changed that several years ago so some ANIMAL parts could not be in feed, because of the Mad Cow scare. But THE chances of THIS coming under that problem is actually LOWER than about anything else! I mean it was VEGETATION that was cleaned, scanned, heated, soaked, exposed to alcohol, and then pressed. Of course it COULD have those prions, but the chances are LOWER than the soil the cows walk on, and they haven't yet created a new tax for THAT!

                                                        BUT, if one follows the LETTER of the idea you discuss, then you shouldn't start ANY business! If I started a business that every year sold a few pencils, and I didn't do it under my name, I would need a DBA. In some cities, I would need a business license. I would likely need a sales/use tax permit. Right NOW, the costs are generally low, but they may one day charge DOZENS of percent. But YOU said that I must account for the FUTURE! Since that is impossible, I must not have ANY business!

                                                        It's up to the Swiss people to decide what works for them, not an American or Australian.
                                                        I wonder if the guy discussing this IS swiss. You know, HITLER was actually from AUSTRIA! Just saying!

                                                        Steve
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9123067].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                    Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                    From a site called libertarianism.org, no thanks.

                                    I can probably tell you exactly what it contains without ever having to look at it.

                                    Some valid points wrapped up in a whole lot of discredited Randian ideology.

                                    As I said, no thanks.
                                    NIC OPEN MIND THERE!

                                    Steve
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121069].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                      NIC OPEN MIND THERE!

                                      Steve
                                      I had to open my mind to that kind of ideology to decide (of my own free will) to reject it. Not completely mind you, it does have some valid points. I try to find the point where opposing ideologies intersect. Equilibrium in other words.

                                      In the quote Thom posted it stated that Sweden has gone from "4th wealthiest nation to 14th". Is that because of Sweden, or is it just that other nations have risen faster.

                                      I'd imagine China is one of the countries that was below Sweden, but is now above it. Is that Sweden's fault, or China's?

                                      India, Brazil, and Indonesia are all countries that have risen in wealth since the original survey was taken. Can you blame their rise on the Swedish system? Of course you can't. It's probable that the rise of these countries is due to them adapting a fairly Swedish model of government/markets/society. In other words, spreading the wealth from the oligarchs to the rest of the population. Or to put it another way, allowing a middle class to flourish.

                                      That's what having an open mind does for you.
                                      Signature
                                      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                      So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121107].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                        In the quote Thom posted it stated that Sweden has gone from "4th wealthiest nation to 14th". Is that because of Sweden, or is it just that other nations have risen faster.
                                        The quote explained it and the article explained it in depth.
                                        Signature

                                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121141].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                        I had to open my mind to that kind of ideology to decide (of my own free will) to reject it. Not completely mind you, it does have some valid points. I try to find the point where opposing ideologies intersect. Equilibrium in other words.

                                        In the quote Thom posted it stated that Sweden has gone from "4th wealthiest nation to 14th". Is that because of Sweden, or is it just that other nations have risen faster.

                                        I'd imagine China is one of the countries that was below Sweden, but is now above it. Is that Sweden's fault, or China's?

                                        India, Brazil, and Indonesia are all countries that have risen in wealth since the original survey was taken. Can you blame their rise on the Swedish system? Of course you can't. It's probable that the rise of these countries is due to them adapting a fairly Swedish model of government/markets/society. In other words, spreading the wealth from the oligarchs to the rest of the population. Or to put it another way, allowing a middle class to flourish.

                                        That's what having an open mind does for you.
                                        Outside of currency, relative debt, or perhaps industry,etc... it is hard to compare the economies of various nations. You are right about that. But I was saying you can't discount a source solely because of a relationship. At least try to get the gist.

                                        I haven't done much research on this aspect of sweden, but Brazil, India, and Indonesia have obviously greatly increased trade In fact Brazil and India are part of a group that increased so much that they named the group, BRIC BRIC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It says Indonesia is one that COULD soon be added to the group.

                                        A BIG reason for the BRIC success though IS inflation, and a transfer of technology and employment. This allowed countries that were highly subsidized to compete with economies that had less labor and higher costs. Look at APPLE! An AMERICAN company run by Americans using AMERICAN technology, and they import the products from CHINA!

                                        Steve
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121219].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.
                                Item #1: 17 Trillion dollars in on-book deficits. 90 trillion dollars of combined on and off book deficits.

                                Item #2: Over 1/3 of a billion people in the US. (Thanks Kay)

                                Item #3: The track record of the wonderful US political system.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?
                                You have a more socialist form of government with less democracy.


                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?
                                Your question implies that these are the only choices. They are not.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.
                                I ceased being amazed a long time ago by the number of people that think unlimited government and unlimited amounts of money will fix everything.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.
                                And not let the people enjoy this political sh..crap-sandwich they created? Not on your life.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..
                                Let me point you to the 3 Items above.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.
                                More than 3 decades of incompetent and sometimes unconstitutional leadership are the primary cause of the current US status.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.
                                Misuse of taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

                                Thought I'd fix that for you.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.
                                Interestingly, it's also not a fact.

                                U.S. education spending tops global list, study shows - CBS News

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".
                                Though less of a myth than your post.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.
                                And the outcome of putting socialist ideas into practice can be seen in North Korea and East Germany before the Berlin Wall fell.

                                Joe Mobley
                                Signature

                                .

                                Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121198].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                  Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                                  And the outcome of putting socialist ideas into practice can be seen in North Korea and East Germany before the Berlin Wall fell.
                                  Actually, neither of those countries are/were socialist. They are communist and/or totalitarian. They may pay lip service to "socialism", but neither of them practice it.

                                  I see that the rest of your post implies you are not for smaller government, but better government. On that we can both agree.

                                  See, we have more in common than you think.
                                  Signature
                                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121212].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post


                                It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.
                                It never ceases to amaze me that those who love the government running everything don't move to one of these other Socialist countries they so brag about. There's a reason we moved here and formed our Republic. We believe in individual freedoms, and even fought a revolutionary war to keep it that way.

                                Many here don't like a socialist type of economy, because we don't like giving up the freedoms you'd have to relinquish to make a socialist type of economy work. We like to work hard - make our own way - and love the freedoms that come along with taking care of ourselves.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121241].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  It never ceases to amaze me that those who love the government running everything don't move to one of these other Socialist countries they so brag about.
                                  At no point here or anywhere else for that matter have I said I love the government running everything. Never. Ever.

                                  As you can see from my reply to Joe, I am all for better government, not more government. Big difference.
                                  Signature
                                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121255].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                                  It never ceases to amaze me that those who love the government running everything don't move to one of these other Socialist countries they so brag about. There's a reason we moved here and formed our Republic. We believe in individual freedoms, and even fought a revolutionary war to keep it that way.

                                  Many here don't like a socialist type of economy, because we don't like giving up the freedoms you'd have to relinquish to make a socialist type of economy work. We like to work hard - make our own way - and love the freedoms that come along with taking care of ourselves.
                                  YEAH! They EVEN reference Russian references! HEY, russia at one point DID offer ALL this stuff! HOW could THEY? THEY COULDN'T! Stores were near empty! Construction was POOR! Wait lines were LONG! Freedoms were limited, but only about as much as they try to limit freedoms HERE! Things like what Bundy experienced weren't uncommon.

                                  THEN, a MIRACLE happened! They decided to make it capitalistic, and gave EVERYONE a piece of the country. OH, it was a SMALL piece, because there were a lot of people. You know what happened? Some BOUGHT the pieces, and took over russia. Eventually, they got Putin elected, and Putin kicked them out.

                                  Want something MORE recent? How about something that started last november Venezuela congress grants President Maduro sweeping new powers | News | DW.DE | 20.11.2013 This was only the START! He lowered profit levels, cut prices on products, etc.... The result? New supplies dried up, old supplies were horded! OK, let's forward to late last month! More deaths in Venezuela amid pro and anti-Maduro rallies | News | DW.DE | 22.03.2014

                                  Three people have been reported dead in Venezuela, as demonstrators rallied for and against President Nicolas Maduro. More than 30 people have now been killed in unrest over the past five weeks.
                                  Anti-government activists protest against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, in Caracas, on March 20, 2014. Demonstrators clashed with riot police in Caracas on Thursday after a march against the arrest of two opposition mayors accused of failing to stop violence in protests that have rocked Venezuela. Some 3,000 people had rallied against the socialist government of Maduro before a subgroup of protesters threw rocks at police who responded with tear gas and water cannons.

                                  There were further reports of deaths on Saturday as protesters rallied in the Venezuelan capital, Caracas and beyond.
                                  "In the name of freedom, put an end to the dictatorship now," read one of the banners that were held aloft in the capital.
                                  Opposition demonstrators have vowed they will stay on the streets until Maduro stands down, amid public anger over hyper inflation, goods shortages and soaring crime.
                                  OK, OK, let's jump to 10 days ago!

                                  Venezuela's main opposition group and President Nicolas Maduro's government have agreed to begin talks to end months of unrest. South American foreign ministers and the Vatican will mediate.
                                  Venezuela Antiregierungsproteste 31.3.14
                                  Key leaders of Venezuela's opposition agreed to enter mediated talks with President Maduro. This follows two months of anti-government protests which claimed 39 lives.
                                  Leaders of the broad Democratic Unity alliance agreed to take part after receiving assurances from diplomats of Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and the Vatican late on Tuesday, local time.
                                  Another opposition party Popular Will led by jailed hardliner Leopold Lopez rejected the talks as a "political show" and called for the release of detained activists.
                                  Flanked by the foreign diplomats, Venezuelan Vice President Jorge Arreaza said breakthrough came at cordial talks.
                                  The full consultations, tentatively scheduled to begin on Thursday, are to be overseen by UNASUR, a regional South American group.
                                  Maduro: Socialism to remain
                                  Maduro, the successor to the deceased populist Hugo Chavez, cautioned however that there would be no change to Venezuela's socialist model of government.
                                  "I would be a traitor if I embarked on negotiating the revolution," Maduro said.
                                  OH YEAH, this has a GREAT track record!

                                  Steve
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121278].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                It doesn't cease to exist in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany France, New Zealand, or any other country with a "socialist economic system", so why would the American system implode if they brought in a similar economic model.

                                What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

                                Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?

                                It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.

                                Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

                                Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc..

                                It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

                                Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

                                Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.

                                An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.

                                Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

                                The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.
                                And now thanks to two recent Supreme Court rulings the wealthy can spend even more of their money to influence our elections.

                                One guy (Sheldon Adelson) spent over 100 million bucks in a losing cause because IMHO he's trying to quash an investigation into his activities.

                                Since the major tax cuts on the top rates of the 1980s (from about 70% to around 35%), ...

                                ... the nation has been engulfed in national debt and the standard of living has slowly gone downhill while also exploding income inequality - which doesn't have a lot to do with should a janitor make as much as a doctor.

                                Check out this chart...



                                In 2007, the top 1 percent share of national income peaked at 23.5 percent.

                                In the only other year since 1913 that the wealthy had claimed such a large share of national income: 1928, when the top 1 percent share was 23.9 percent.

                                The following year, 1929, the stock market crashed, and the Great Depression began.

                                And then...

                                After peaking again in 2007, the U.S. stock market crashed the following year - in 2008, leading to the Great Recession and its aftermath.

                                What a coincidence.
                                Signature

                                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121293].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                  And now thanks to Supreme Court rulings the wealthy can spend even more of their money to influence our elections.

                                  One guy (Sheldon Adelson) spent over 100 million bucks in a losing cause because he's trying to quash an investigation into his activities.

                                  Since the major tax cuts on the top rates of the 1980s (from about 70% to around 35%), ...

                                  ... the nation has been engulfed in national debt and the standard of living has slowly gone downhill while exploding income inequality - which doesn't have a lot to do with should a janitor make as much as a doctor.

                                  Check out this chart...



                                  In 2007, the top 1 percent share of national income peaked at 23.5 percent.

                                  In the only other year since 1913 that the wealthy had claimed such a large share of national income: 1928, when the top 1 percent share was 23.9 percent.

                                  The following year, 1929, the stock market crashed, and the Great Depression began.

                                  And...

                                  After peaking again in 2007, the U.S. stock market crashed in 2008, leading to the Great Recession and its aftermath.

                                  What a coincidence.
                                  HMMM. I WONDER! Do you think all those BILLIONS of people over the centuries are right and the rich invest some money in securities? Do you FURTHER think that MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, the government, after creating havok in the markets and forcing people to sell, declares the increased price(some of which is INFLATION) to be INCOME, lists it as income and taxes it? Just MAYBE!?!?!?!? Do you think?

                                  So THAT is why when I entered the 1099 from one of my brokers that my refund dropped $3000! And maybe THAT is why so many say that Warren buffet pays less tax because he has so much DIVIDEND INCOME, and CAPITAL GAINS(from INVESTMENTS).

                                  Do you think? If not, PLEASE let the IRS know! They are making some TERRIBLE mistakes!

                                  Steve
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121318].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                ...What happens to your democracy, if the overwhelming majority of people vote for a more "socialist economic model"?

                                Will you accept that the "people have spoken", or would you plot the overthrow of the government?
                                Thankfully, our system of government - a representative republic - guards against, at least to some degree, the 'overwhelming majority'.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                It never ceases to amaze me that people who blame government (left or right, doesn't matter), don't move to Somalia where there is no government at all. Sounds like it might be these people's paradise.
                                There is a vast difference, and I think you know this but choose to resort to exaggeration regardless, between limited government and no government at all. No one here has advocated for anarchy that I know of. If you can't make a point without resorting to hyperbole, maybe you shouldn't try to make one at all.

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Since Dennis pointed out that the US ceased to be a democracy a long time ago and transformed into an oligarchy, why wouldn't you try something different to put "we the people" back in control.

                                Why not try a new economic model based on those countries which have better outcomes for its citizenry on just about every area of life, health, education, etc...
                                Term limits would do wonders for controlling an oligarchical government. We saw fit to limit the president to two terms, why not the Congress?

                                Why not loosen the regulatory grip of the government on the economic model that built this country into the most successful example of self-government ever recorded?

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                It seems to me that the oligarchy rose because of this aversion to "socialism", not in retaliation to it.

                                Three decades of "tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts" are putting the US on a path to third world status.

                                Cast your mind to when America was placed highly on the social outcomes mentioned before. Americans paid a lot more in taxes then in exchange for those outcomes. Slashing taxes has reduced America's standings in just about every aspect of the lives of its citizenry.
                                Maybe we could cast our minds to the success of the US before the advent of the income tax?

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                An example is education. The public system has been starved of funding over the decades and America's standing for educational outcomes has slipped correspondingly. It's not a coincidence.
                                Why don't we get the unions and the administrators out of the way of the educators, and allow results-driven performance evaluations?

                                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                                Neo-Liberalism (ie let the market determine what outcomes are achieved) is a failure. It has proven to be as much a myth as "reducing taxes produces more revenue", and the "trickle down effect".

                                The only outcome from putting these myths into practice is that an oligarchy of the "one per centers" develops.
                                Again, in different terms, I would hardly classify the success of the US as a 'failure', nor would any honest person.
                                Signature

                                The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                                Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121404].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
                                  Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                                  There is a vast difference, and I think you know this but choose to resort to exaggeration regardless, between limited government and no government at all. No one here has advocated for anarchy that I know of. If you can't make a point without resorting to hyperbole, maybe you shouldn't try to make one at all.
                                  OK I apologise for that, but you'll see in a subsequent post I am, have always done so, and always will, advocate for better government. So, we agree with the end result, we just look at it from different angles. All good.

                                  Maybe we could cast our minds to the success of the US before the advent of the income tax?
                                  I'm not sure when that was, but I think it was 1917. America was successful before then?

                                  At that stage America was an "emerging market". It had no middle class to speak of. This is what is generally accepted as the sign of a developed nation - a burgening middle class with spending power. That is, what powers a nation's economy, a middle class with money to spare.

                                  Not tax cuts, not deregulation - a strong middle class. No amount of tax cuts to a businesses owners are going to improve your bottom line if no-one can afford to buy your product, end of story.

                                  Why don't we get the unions and the administrators out of the way of the educators, and allow results-driven performance evaluations?
                                  How do you define "results" though? Is it just being able to read and write? Is it fostering an imagination that can dream of a better way of doing things? Is it scientific achievement?

                                  We all know of people with limited "results" who've gone on to be hugely successful. On the other side of the coin, we both know people who have a long list of academic achievements, but are in essence as dumb as a doorknob.

                                  How would you design a system that allows for, and indeed encourage's both of these outcomes? That's a serious question by the way, not having a go.

                                  Again, in different terms, I would hardly classify the success of the US as a 'failure', nor would any honest person.
                                  Failing and being a failure are not the same thing. The US isn't a failure, in the same way that Britain, which once commanded the greatest empire in world history, but is now in decline, is a failure. Neither of them will ever become failed states (the people won't let them get that bad), but that doesn't mean they aren't failing their peoples.

                                  Change that, it's not the government per se that is letting its people down. It's the oligarchical corporate masters who control your government which is failing the people.

                                  When someone works 40 hours a week, and still needs welfare (in the form of food stamps) in order to eat, that isn't social welfare, its corporate welfare.

                                  Allowing corporations to pay less than starvation wages where the government (read that as other taxpayers) has to subsidise the worker's income so he or she can eat, is a handout to the corporation, not to the people receiving the food stamps.

                                  The worker working harder so they get paid more is another myth. If someone is so good they have to be paid a decent wage, the employer may well get rid of them in favour of someone who may not do as good a job, but will work for a low wage.

                                  Don't say that doesn't happen, because it does. When you've got the only source of employment in a town, you decide what people get paid, not the diligence of the worker. Why should they pay above average rates to any individual, when there's a mine of unemployed people you can replace them with for a much cheaper rate.

                                  Anyway, this is a fascinating discussion, and I'm glad to see that it has been conducted in a very civilised manner from all points of view so far.

                                  Let's hope it stays that way.
                                  Signature
                                  Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
                                  So that blind people can hate them as well.
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121554].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                        Just for a point of clarity, what form of government do you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy?

                        Joe Mobley

                        Just for a point of clarity, you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy with a Socialist form of government?
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Socialism isn't a form of government.

                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy, etc... all make this idea interesting and compelling to me.
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        The same thing with my dissatisfaction with the direction the US and the world are going. These are reasons I am interested in the idea though.
                        Signature

                        .

                        Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118614].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

                          Just for a point of clarity, what form of government do you favor replacing the US democracy, or Oligarchy?

                          Joe Mobley
                          That's just as nonsensical as your last question Joe. I'm not suggesting replacing our form of government. I sure hope you reach that clarity you are trying to find though. Good grief!
                          Signature
                          Over 50 Dating
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118663].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            I'm not suggesting replacing our form of government.
                            Your post here on the Warrior Forum would not support that statement.

                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            I sure hope you reach that clarity you are trying to find though.
                            I appreciate that.

                            Joe Mobley
                            Signature

                            .

                            Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118882].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                  I can see your points to a point. On the issue of "income inequality" I responded above as to why having a starting minimum would not eradicate people claiming inequality. There will ALWAYS be an equality so even adding that to the mix is pointless. Or rather it's simply used as something for one side to point to about the other.

                  The dissatisfaction - that may or may not be as bad as it's made out. Depends on who you talk to (opinions) so that should be left out of the argument as well.

                  If there's an argument to be made, it should be about verifiable facts. Me personally, I have not a care in the world that there are people out there who make more than me and many who make less than me. Fairness is a point of view, not a fact. Things will never be fair. Even if everyone made the same amount of money, there will always be those who work harder than others - so THEY will complain about fairness and inequality.

                  Thomas Paine - I'd have to go back and read more of his writings, but I think you really can't know what he would be like today since the circumstances and society are radically different today than they were when he was alive. I have radically different ideas at 49 than I did at 19, 29, etc.

                  So for me, this has to make economic sense all by iteself. Save the emotional and opinionated arguments because you'd never get a consensus based on that. At least, I don't think you can.

                  Switzerland testing is a good idea, but it still wouldn't tell us one bit how it would work here. We are different societies, much larger population, government, ideologies...you get the idea. Again - look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

                  Perhaps my outlook is cynical to a degree - but really, I think it's just our reality.
                  You said...

                  look at the health care debate. If it COULD work here we'd have the same kind of health care as Canada, France, etc.

                  I say...

                  I say the reason we haven't tried single payer here in the U.S. is a lack of political will.

                  That is to say the house OK'd it, but the senate could not muster up more than 45 senate votes (by one party) of the 60 votes needed.

                  If we would have gotten the 60 votes we'd be on our way to trying a single payer system right now.

                  Single payer advocates simply couldn't gets the votes necessary and whether it would/could have worked or not - had/has nothing to do with it.
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118460].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                ... a dissatifaction with the way things are going now with the US looking more and more like an Oligarchy...
                Interesting that you bring that up now, because Princeton and Northwestern Universities published a new study that concludes the US is now an oligarchy.

                Study concludes: The US is an oligarchy, not a democracy - UPI.com

                There's a link to the study for anyone that cares to read it.

                "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence,"
                And before anyone starts going into liberal/conservative mode, realize that the economic elite belong to both major parties.
                Signature

                Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118340].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
                  We've been an oligarchy for going on 30 years.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118382].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                    Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

                    We've been an oligarchy for going on 30 years.
                    But now that a study has been done, it's official.
                    Signature

                    Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118390].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by Dennis Gaskill View Post

                  Interesting that you bring that up now, because Princeton and Northwestern Universities published a new study that concludes the US is now an oligarchy.
                  A good argument can be made that the US has always been an oligarchy to some degree, and it started out at a higher degree than at other times in our history. Only white male landowners could vote at first.
                  Signature
                  Over 50 Dating
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9118596].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Here's an interview with one of the people behind this referendum. He actually says it isn't about class struggle, left or right, etc...

        A Basic Income is Not a Crazy Idea - YouTube
        Actually, he DOES say it is class struggle!

        2:31 He states a MORONIC idea that somehow prices will drop if you raise the base pay, because companies won't have to pay it. Never mind that the money comes from taxes, and that if taxes dropped the potential to pay that money would ALSO drop. Think of it! If 50% of te people worked, they woud pay an average or $66,000 to support them, and the others, and be paid back $33,000.
        2:51 TRANSFER (TO THE POOR)!
        3:35 RICH PAY MORE!
        4:21 PEOPLE DON'T WORK [just] FOR THE MONEY!
        5:07 He basically says that things like a garbage collector should be paid FAR MORE because of the damage his plan will do.

        He ALSO doubts that many would simply do nothing, though we have some in the US, and Danish studies ALSO prove him wrong.

        So it IS a poor idea, and IS based on class warfare. BTW if the lowest level "dirty jobs" paid SO much more, the price of just about everything will go up. Basel is a nice area, I would hate to see the whole thing run down.

        BTW 100K signatures is only 1.2% of the country, and a lot of things could make it an even lower number, so it STILL could lose miserably.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121251].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Actually, he DOES say it is class struggle!
          Oh. That IS good. I was kind of disappointed when he said it wasn't. It SHOULD be!
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121414].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Oh. That IS good. I was kind of disappointed when he said it wasn't. It SHOULD be!
            Yep! FIRST he made it clear it was, THEN he said it wasn't, and then he drove the point home that it was.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122000].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kishokv
    they got minimal mothily salary about 4000 franks?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9119623].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      I turn on the tube and what do I see
      A whole lotta people cryin' "Don't blame me"
      They point their crooked little fingers at everbody else
      Spend all their time feelin' sorry for themselves
      Victim of this, victim of that
      Your momma's too thin; your daddy's too fat

      Get over it
      Get over it
      All this whinin' and cryin' and pitchin' a fit
      Get over it, get over it

      You say you haven't been the same since you had your little crash
      But you might feel better if they gave you some cash
      The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
      Let's kill all the lawyers - kill 'em tonight
      You don't want to work; you want to live like a king
      But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

      Get over it
      Get over it
      If you don't want to play, then you might as well split
      Get over it, get over it

      It's like going to confession every time I hear you speak
      You're makin' the most of your losin' streak
      Some call it sick, but I call it weak

      You drag it around like a ball and chain
      You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain
      You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown
      Got your mind in the gutter, bringin' everybody down
      Complain about the present and blame it on the past
      I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass

      Get over it
      Get over it
      All this bitchin' and moanin' and pitchin' a fit
      Get over it, get over it

      Get over it
      Get over it
      It's gotta stop sometime, so why don't you quit
      Get over it, get over it

      Get over it


      Joe Mobley
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9119909].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

        You don't want to work; you want to live like a king
        But the big, bad world doesn't owe you a thing

        Get over it

        Complain about the present and blame it on the past
        I'd like to find your inner child and kick it's little ass

        Get over it
        Not Don Henley's best writing in my opinion, but it must mean something to you Joe. What should we get over? Or is it you who needs to get over something? Do you feel like kicking someone's ass? Sounds like you are angry Joe. What does this have to do with Switzerland? More importantly, why do you have your full name, Joe Mobley, as your avatar when the avatar is right under your username which is also Joe Mobley and then also sign every single post you make Joe Mobley?
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121410].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW Julie only talks about TWO problems with raising the minimum wage, but look at the text when she discusses that there are cons:


    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120368].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author msdobe
    This is an interesting referendum!

    I really love Switzerland and the Swiss. I lived in Geneva for a year in the early 70's, and the one thing I must say about that is... there are no more honest people in the world than the Swiss! I can tell you stories that you absolutely would not believe about their honesty. They're definitely one of a kind.

    Don't know if that's still true today, but I have the highest regards for the Swiss!

    They're an amazing people and amazing country and all I can say is... Good for them!
    Jenny
    Signature

    If you can read this.... thank a teacher.
    If you can read this in English... thank a vet!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9120947].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

      This is an interesting referendum!

      I really love Switzerland and the Swiss. I lived in Geneva for a year in the early 70's, and the one thing I must say about that is... there are no more honest people in the world than the Swiss! I can tell you stories that you absolutely would not believe about their honesty. They're definitely one of a kind.

      Don't know if that's still true today, but I have the highest regards for the Swiss!

      They're an amazing people and amazing country and all I can say is... Good for them!
      Jenny
      Yeah, I really respected them TOO until they CAVED on their banking laws and recently CAVED on their backed money. Only maybe ONE thing remains that keeps them special, and I bet THAT gets wiped out soon. With the loss of their backed money though, I almost expected something like THIS. The other may may soon ALSO disappear. The ONLY nation to be close is Israel.

      STILL, with all that has happened, someone could destroy switzerland without firing a shot. SAD!

      ANOTHER thing! Switzerland USED to be like the US used to be! Citizen army, guns welcome, safe, an asylum for the unjustly persecuted, currency backed by gold, great work ethic, private, strictly followed constitution, and BOTH are federations of a sort. The US now has 50 states, Switzerland now has 26 states(they call them cantons). In BOTH cases, the states have their own flag, things they are proud of, their own laws, within the confines of the federal constitution, etc.... AND a unifying language even though some states had their own language. In switzerland, it isn't as popular as English in the US, but they prefer High German, which is the local language of about 85% of the country. They still speak French, Italian, and Rhetto romansche as well. In the US, some states had a strong spanish and french influence. Louisiana STILL has many that speak some french and some dishes are named accordingly, and they celebrate carnival! It is even called Mardi Gras(French for Fat Tuesday). Of course, on a smaller scale, many states had other languages.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_Swiss_cantons

      BUT the US is gone, and I guess Switzerland is dying also.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121021].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by msdobe View Post

      This is an interesting referendum!

      I really love Switzerland and the Swiss. I lived in Geneva for a year in the early 70's, and the one thing I must say about that is... there are no more honest people in the world than the Swiss! I can tell you stories that you absolutely would not believe about their honesty. They're definitely one of a kind.

      Don't know if that's still true today, but I have the highest regards for the Swiss!

      They're an amazing people and amazing country and all I can say is... Good for them!
      Jenny
      I agree Jenny. It is an interesting referendum! Thanks for your input.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9121430].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    ThomM,

    The way I heard it, there will have to be registration and, I believe, a new tax. Apparently the two industries have been cooperating like this a LONG time! The ranchers pay less for feed, and the brewers get rid of what is basically garbage. The cows probably don't notice, and they DO have ways to get every last bit of nutrition out of the grain, so they probably get benefit.

    So it is win/win/win. The government plans are disliked by BOTH the breweries and the ranchers. And what should the government care!?!!??!!? J.R. simplot, for example, PRIDES themselves on doing all sorts of things with byproducts from potato processing. They actually have a DOCUMENTARY on it! Will the government pull THEM apart?

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9122949].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RickCopy
    this is the biggest joke ive ever heard of.

    maybe im just one of those "heartless conservatives" (I dont subscribe to any political party) but I think it makes pretty good sense for people to just take care of themselves..I really dont see the point of taking money from people, giving it to the government, and then the government giving it back to us after taking their "administration costs" cut.

    we dont need a smarter government, a cool government or a helpful government... we need people to understand what government actually is and to decide if, as a republic (US), we really need to be outsourcing as much stuff to them as we do. If you guys havent paid attention, .gov doesnt have the greatest track record as far as managing responsibilities, and yet year after year, more and more people want to the government to regulate this, tax this, criminalize this...and yet very few people seem to realize that they're just giving more and more money to an untrustworthy partner to do things they could do themselves better. That, and people nowadays simply think their opinion should somehow be considered for things they have absolutely nothing to do with.

    They're nothing more than the overpriced designer on oDesk... unfortunately, we dont get to work with anyone else.

    outsourcing, in its most effective form doesnt rely on the creativity or "smarts" of the person doing the work. You give them a specific task, with specific instructions and say "go". That's it. If I outsourced work to someone and they wanted to tinker with my project because they think its better "their way" theyd be fired on the spot.

    If more people actually took responsibility for their lives, and we worked together to solve actual societal problems voluntarily instead of just outsourcing every bitch and whine we can think of to the government we probably wouldn't be facing the worst economical disaster of human history.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9150172].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      Originally Posted by RickCopy View Post

      If more people actually took responsibility for their lives,
      As a Silver Bullet is to a Werewolf, so is Personal Responsibility to a socialist.
      Joe Mobley
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153126].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    I heard just this morning about an AMERICAN company that is SHUTTING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!! They are moving to the UK! WHY? Because, IRONICALLY, the UK will charge them 22% less in tax! The US government will take that extra 6% off the profit margin, and try to make ALL that buy through the US MAD at the "health care" industry!

    Because of that 6% less profit, they have to provide less or CHARGE MORE just to break EVEN! And if THEY charge 6% more, that means the DISTRIBUTORS must charge still MORE! And if THEY pay more, the first buyer must pay more. That COULD go to ANOTHER buyer to increase yet AGAIN! And THEN, the final consumer must pay more! IMAGINE, you may pay 30% more because of TAXES!!!!!!!

    Oh, and did I mention? This means you are LESS likely to buy, which means they make LESS profit and the US gets LESS "revenue"?

    But the government wants you to think of lower taxes as SUBSIDIES and "CORPORATE WELFARE"! They want to make you think the TAX PAYERS are paying for it! News for you, companies almost NEVER pay, since it gets passed to the CONSUMERS!

    As shakespeare once wrote.... "that which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." So call it a tax, or a high price, you STILL pay it!

    Anyway, that company, and all those American jobs are going BYE BYE! Pfizer, we hardly knew yee. Parting is such a sorrow. I only wish I could say it was sweet and hope we will last....

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9150396].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Interesting recent article here about the Swiss referendum:

      Similar results were observed when North Carolina's Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians began distributing casino revenue as cash payments to all members of the tribe. After five years, by which time the yearly profits per person amounted to $6,000, the number in poverty declined by half, youth crime and mental illness decreased, and high school graduation rates increased.

      According to an OpEd by science writer Moises Velasquez-Manoff in The New York Times, "5 to 10 years after age 19, the savings incurred by the Cherokee income supplements surpass the initial costs -- the payments to parents while the children were minors."

      This suggests an answer to those who see guaranteed income only in terms of its cost to taxpayers: Everyone benefits from having reduced crime and health care expenditures and more educated and productive citizens. And there seems not to have been a substantial work disincentive, even though the payments had risen by 2006 to $9,000 per person.
      Guaranteed income for every adult? It
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152529].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Interesting recent article here about the Swiss referendum:
        Similar results were observed when North Carolina's Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians began distributing casino revenue as cash payments to all members of the tribe. After five years, by which time the yearly profits per person amounted to $6,000, the number in poverty declined by half, youth crime and mental illness decreased, and high school graduation rates increased.

        According to an OpEd by science writer Moises Velasquez-Manoff in The New York Times, "5 to 10 years after age 19, the savings incurred by the Cherokee income supplements surpass the initial costs -- the payments to parents while the children were minors."

        This suggests an answer to those who see guaranteed income only in terms of its cost to taxpayers: Everyone benefits from having reduced crime and health care expenditures and more educated and productive citizens. And there seems not to have been a substantial work disincentive, even though the payments had risen by 2006 to $9,000 per person.
        Guaranteed income for every adult? It
        There's a big difference between sharing revenue from Indian casinos that are on Indian land that in fact all the Indians there own and redistributing taxes.
        For one thing they're not taking a portion of someones earnings and giving it to someone else.
        The casino money is more like profit sharing.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152610].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          There's a big difference between sharing revenue from Indian casinos that are on Indian land that in fact all the Indians there own and redistributing taxes.
          For one thing they're not taking a portion of someones earnings and giving it to someone else.
          The casino money is more like profit sharing.
          Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of a minimum income. The results were interesting to me: lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, increased graduation rates, lower mental illness and a savings to the community that surpassed the initial costs! Don't you find that interesting also?

          By the way Thom, I found an article about this topic titled "The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income". In it the author gives three libertarian arguments in support of a Basic Income Guarantee. #2 is especially compelling to me and brings to mind the reason I quoted Thomas Paine earlier.

          1) A Basic Income Guarantee would be much better than the current welfare state...

          Each one of those anti-poverty programs comes with its own bureaucracy and its own Byzantine set of rules. If you want to shrink the size and scope of government, eliminating those departments and replacing them with a program so simple it could virtually be administered by a computer seems like a good place to start. Eliminating bloated bureaucracies means more money in the hands of the poor and lower costs to the taxpayer. Win/Win...

          2) A Basic Income Guarantee might be required on libertarian grounds as reparation for past injustice...

          However attractive libertarianism might be in theory, “Libertarianism…Starting Now!” has the ring of special pleading, especially when it comes from the mouths of people who have by and large emerged at the top of the bloody and murderous mess that is our collective history...

          In a world in which all property was acquired by peaceful processes of labor-mixing and voluntary trade, a tax-funded Basic Income Guarantee might plausibly be held to violate libertarian rights. But our world is not that world. And since we do not have the information that would be necessary to engage in a precise rectification of past injustices, and since simply ignoring those injustices seems unfair, perhaps something like a Basic Income Guarantee can be justified as an approximate rectification?

          3. A Basic Income Guarantee might be required to meet the basic needs of the poor.

          Both Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek advocated for something like a Basic Income Guarantee as a proper function of government, though on somewhat different grounds...

          "The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born. "...

          ...a basic income is not merely a permissible option but a mandatory requirement of democratic legitimacy - a policy that must be instituted in order to justify the coercive power that even a Hayekian state would exercise over its citizens...

          The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income | Libertarianism.org
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152863].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of a minimum income. The results were interesting to me: lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, increased graduation rates, lower mental illness and a savings to the community that surpassed the initial costs! Don't you find that interesting also?

            By the way Thom, I found an article about this topic titled "The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income". In it the author gives three libertarian arguments in support of a Basic Income Guarantee. #2 is especially compelling to me and brings to mind the reason I quoted Thomas Paine earlier.




            The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income | Libertarianism.org

            As Artie Johnson of Laugh-In fame would say...



            Very interesting.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152925].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of a minimum income. The results were interesting to me: lower crime rates, lower poverty rates, increased graduation rates, lower mental illness and a savings to the community that surpassed the initial costs! Don't you find that interesting also?

            By the way Thom, I found an article about this topic titled "The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income". In it the author gives three libertarian arguments in support of a Basic Income Guarantee. #2 is especially compelling to me and brings to mind the reason I quoted Thomas Paine earlier.




            The Libertarian Case for a Basic Income | Libertarianism.org
            Again Tim, it's not a min. income it's profit sharing. It's not funded by other peoples tax money but by the casino profits. You don't think if profits go down the amount shared will also go down?
            As for the Libertarian Case for basic income. I agree with #1, the rest not so much.
            Implementing the rest could lead to a big bureaucracy again as people get greedy and demand more.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152988].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              Again Tim, it's not a min. income it's profit sharing. It's not funded by other peoples tax money but by the casino profits. You don't think if profits go down the amount shared will also go down?
              I got that the first time you said it. You're right though. I worded my last response wrong. I should have said "Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of an equal income provided to a community which could be useful to those contemplating the idea of a minimum income."
              Signature
              Over 50 Dating
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153632].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                I got that the first time you said it. You're right though. I worded my last response wrong. I should have said "Sure, there's a difference but this provides a small case study on the effects of an equal income provided to a community which could be useful to those contemplating the idea of a minimum income."
                Yep it does, as long as the people live on a reservation. For that matter you could say the same about Alaska. Don't they all get a check from the oil companies?
                If the government wants to abolish income taxes and give me a share of their profits I'm all for it.
                Heck if they want to start a bunch of casinos and give me a share of the profits, I'm for that also.
                I'm what you would call greedy. I would rather keep my money and decide who and how to help instead of giving it to the government. I don't get the logic of the government taking my money so they can give some of it back to me and crow about how they are helping me.
                Look at all the taxes we have now. You get taxed when you make money and you get taxed when you spend money, pretty good racket they have
                Signature

                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153673].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                  Yep it does, as long as the people live on a reservation. For that matter you could say the same about Alaska. Don't they all get a check from the oil companies?
                  Thom, the checks the citizens in Alaska get are about $900 a year which breaks down to $75 a month. The Cherokee tribe members get about $3500 to $4000 a month. One amount is similar to the amount the Swiss are proposing and the other is about 1/50th. Surely you can see why one would be used as an example for the Swiss proposal and the other wouldn't? I know where the money comes from is different, but to me the comparison makes sense. Of course that is just my opinion, and I think you disagree.
                  Signature
                  Over 50 Dating
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155225].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Thom, the checks the citizens in Alaska get are about $900 a year which breaks down to $75 a month. The Cherokee tribe members get about $3500 to $4000 a month. One amount is similar to the amount the Swiss are proposing and the other is about 1/50th. Surely you can see why one would be used as an example for the Swiss proposal and the other wouldn't? I know where the money comes from is different, but to me the comparison makes sense. Of course that is just my opinion, and I think you disagree.
                    Of course you think the comparison makes sense.
                    If we both worked for the same company you as VP and me on the assembly line and we each got a % of their profit that is like what the Indians are doing.
                    If we both worked for the same company and I took a portion of your earnings because I felt I should make what you're making, that's what the Swiss want to do.
                    Big difference and you can't compare one to the other.
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155810].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      Of course you think the comparison makes sense.
                      If we both worked for the same company you as VP and me on the assembly line and we each got a % of their profit that is like what the Indians are doing.
                      If we both worked for the same company and I took a portion of your earnings because I felt I should make what you're making, that's what the Swiss want to do.
                      Big difference and you can't compare one to the other.
                      Again, I understand they are different situations and how the money is obtained is also different. Geesh. What we are talking about are the results. In my opinion they can be compared. I don't see how the results of the community I posted earlier can be much different just by where the money comes from.
                      Signature
                      Over 50 Dating
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155841].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        Again, I understand they are different situations and how the money is obtained is also different. Geesh. What we are talking about are the results. In my opinion they can be compared. I don't see how the results of the community I posted earlier can be much different just by where the money comes from.
                        I can guess Thom's comments revolve around your seeming opinion that the ends justify the means.

                        I think the idea might have some merit, but how to achieve it is the sticking point.

                        But I could be wrong...
                        Signature

                        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155901].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Interesting recent article here about the Swiss referendum:



        Guaranteed income for every adult? It
        You guys DO NOT GET IT!!!!!! The US is basically a CLOSED SYSTEM! SURE, there is money from other countries, but it is relatively minor and helps keep the value up normally. Besides, if we export something, we get a higher value in the other currency. But AGAIN, it is for products or services.

        One idiot recently spoke of a $%^&* paradise claiming it was an example of such a system running successfully. FREE HEALTH CARE! FREE EDUCATION! MINIMUM INCOME for all, PENSIONS, etc..... Actually, it is an ABYSMAL FAILURE! WHY? Because it loses money ALL OVER THE PLACE! At times, it loses 100s of billions in ONE SHOT!

        So HOW COME it has run"successfully" for a bit over 100 years or so? HOW can it pay all that money and keep going even though it loses money left and right? WELL, as the US ARMY, the US pays for it! Because it is an ABYSMAL failure as a closed economy, the US is paying EVEN TO THIS DAY! And what about the people that get the free income? WELL, if they start vacationing on the beach, or just don't go to work, they will likely be THROWN IN JAIL and/or discharged! They are either paid for someone that is working or has worked, or to be there and prepared in case they are called to do a given type of task.

        But HEY, it was never meant to make money. IMAGINE if we had to make money on every war! What would they do in peace time?

        About that indian group? It IS the LEAST they can do. Indians were given all those rights not so THEY could benefit, but so their SOCIETY and PEOPLE could. And SOME even go there just to support that. But you have a relatively large number of people risking who knows what to help a relatively small number of people. If indians ever dropped to practically nill, the government may not even view them as worthy. One could make a claim they aren't even indians, and it wouldn't be the first time a treaty was broken.

        But to say a country could support all in it if all wanted to surf all day? YIKES! You have middle east countries that do it through the land rights and oil extracted from it. You have the militaries paid for by the countries, and the indians paid by special rights and land rights. They often offer gambling, tobacco products, and probably even guided tours, hiking, etc.... Even the UK with the pensions and "free health care", etc.... NEEDS people to work there. Heck, the indians and arabs do ALSO.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152631].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
    I'm having a very hard time buying the claim that most people who receive only a basic income will be content to sit around all day doing nothing.

    Basic incomes let you survive, but don't offer much else. Wouldn't everyone would prefer to work so that they can live more decently?
    Signature

    Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
    _______________________________________________
    "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9152921].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garyv
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      I'm having a very hard time buying the claim that most people who receive only a basic income will be content to sit around all day doing nothing.

      Basic incomes let you survive, but don't offer much else. Wouldn't everyone would prefer to work so that they can live more decently?
      Come visit me near Chicago - I'll show you entire neighborhoods of people doing that for less than a basic income.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153024].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
        Originally Posted by garyv View Post

        Come visit me near Chicago - I'll show you entire neighborhoods of people doing that for less than a basic income.
        And you're sure it's all by choice on their parts? :rolleyes:
        Signature

        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
        _______________________________________________
        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153135].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          And you're sure it's all by choice on their parts? :rolleyes:
          Of course it is. After all, there are sooooo many jobs available. [/sarcasm]
          Signature
          Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
          So that blind people can hate them as well.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153577].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author garyv
            Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

            Of course it is. After all, there are sooooo many jobs available. [/sarcasm]

            And yet a minimum income is going to bring in some jobs for them to do? LOL - good luck with that.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153641].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
              Originally Posted by garyv View Post

              And yet a minimum income is going to bring in some jobs for them to do? LOL - good luck with that.
              I see, I see. The Swiss are having a referendum on bringing a minimum income to Chicago are they?

              LOL back at ya. Twice, nay thrice.
              Signature
              Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
              So that blind people can hate them as well.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153710].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                I see, I see. The Swiss are having a referendum on bringing a minimum income to Chicago are they?

                LOL back at ya. Twice, nay thrice.
                Minimum income is what this whole thread is about... Wow, this is like talking to a brick wall.

                Never mind, carry on... I'm beginning to figure out the problem.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154741].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                  Minimum income what this whole thread is about... Wow, this is like talking to a brick wall.

                  Never mind, carry on... I'm beginning to figure out the problem.
                  So have we. Fraud in the welfare system and a minimum income - which doesn't change based on the number of kids you have - are not the same thing at all.

                  Outliers like Hasidic Jews and people who have more kids for "free money" ... anything to distract from the big picture. (sigh)
                  Signature

                  Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                  _______________________________________________
                  "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155174].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                    So now go ahead - minimize the problem.
                    Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                    So have we. Fraud in the welfare system and a minimum income - which doesn't change based on the number of kids you have - are not the same thing at all.

                    Outliers like Hasidic Jews and people who have more kids for "free money" ... anything to distract from the big picture. (sigh)

                    I rest my case
                    Signature

                    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155202].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

                I see, I see. The Swiss are having a referendum on bringing a minimum income to Chicago are they?

                LOL back at ya. Twice, nay thrice.
                NOPE! YKW is! It was JUST voted down, but they are going to push it through somehow.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154894].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  NOPE! YKW is! It was JUST voted down, but they are going to push it through somehow.

                  Steve
                  You are again getting minimum wage and minimum income mixed up. There hasn't been any minimum income bill in the US voted down or that will be pushed through somehow.
                  Signature
                  Over 50 Dating
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155488].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    You are again getting minimum wage and minimum income mixed up. There hasn't been any minimum income bill in the US voted down or that will be pushed through somehow.
                    Whatever! OK, MINIMUM WAGE! STILL, ironically, the REAL minimum income, given a standard minimum wage work week, for 52 weeks will only go up about 1%. People like YOU don't see that as dumb and hypocritical, and a clear example of what ALWAYS happens, but I certainly do. USUALLY, the supposed increase drops in value because of inflation. HERE it dropped even BEFORE the minimum wage increase due to red tape and a STUPID change that, though it seems SIMPLE, triggers TONS of rules. Just those that I could rattle off from memory is STAGGERING, but it may only be a fraction of the ones that actually exist.

                    Oh well, I am happy it dropped when it did so people could maybe see that things like the rise in the minimum wage didn't start the whole thing.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155673].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          And you're sure it's all by choice on their parts? :rolleyes:
          Of course Gary has this unique ability to drive by neighborhoods and determine the entire neighborhood is on welfare. :/ However, even if that was true it doesn't counter your point because people on welfare and people on a minimum income are different. For one thing, people can't work and get welfare usually, but they can work and receive a minimum income.
          Signature
          Over 50 Dating
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153638].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Of course Gary has this unique ability to drive by neighborhoods and determine the entire neighborhood is on welfare. :/ However, even if that was true it doesn't counter your point because people on welfare and people on a minimum income are different. For one thing, people can't work and get welfare usually, but they can work and receive a minimum income.
            Actually, I do. Not more than a mile from where I live.

            There is a rapidly growing community of Hasidic Jews that a few years back was called the "poorest" town in the country (in towns with a population of I believe 20k or more). They determined them to be the poorest due to the high level of welfare.

            So let me explain how it works and how they game the system...

            First, when they marry, they only marry in their religion - NOT through the state. Next, they tend to have VERY large families. 6, 8, even 12 kids is not uncommon.

            Now, because they are not "technically" married, the mothers are all considered "single mothers", who are of course, entitled to welfare of all kinds. And the more kids, the bigger the checks

            Additionally, the men in the community tend to focus more on religion than education and work. And many of those who DO work, work in the diamond district in NYC as well as the garment district. And guess what? They work for a LOT of cash - which kind of blows your theory of people on welfare can't work. They simply work for cash

            Unreported cash, I assure you.

            Now let's talk about how they game the system more.

            Come election time (local elections) they choose a candidate (NOT form their own community) who is sympathetic to their "causes" - which means the ones whose votes they can buy by assuring their election win. They do this by block voting - ALL eligible voters get on buses and go to the polls and vote as they are directed to.

            Once they have these elected officials in their pocket, they run to the state for "aid" for SOME cause or need - then promptly use this PUBLIC money to build private schools, "affordable" housing that while CALLED public is nowhere NEAR public, houses of worship, an underground 10 mile water line to tap in to the NYC aqueduct (for unlimited expansion)...you name it.

            And they get away with all of this.

            Now, I do realize that this is just a small group, comparatively speaking. But they are responsible for taking our county budget from something like 60 million to over 180 million with MUCH of that spent on welfare for these "poor" people. And there's an even bigger community of them one county from us, and an even larger still community in Brooklyn.

            It's tiring listening to people talk about "welfare cheaters" who don't want to work as a small problem. It's not and people need to open their eyes.

            Yes, we have bigger issues. I get that. But people love to minimize this issue in the name of MORE public assistance programs (which we like to call enabling programs). The problem is real.

            No matter how much you try to help people, a percentage (getting larger every day I would suspect) take advantage of those helping them.

            So now go ahead - minimize the problem. Make some reason why it's not their fault, or the fault of the right - whatever. I have watched this BS for the past 25 years. The problem is real and in THIS state will continue to get worse.
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153695].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              The problem is real and in THIS state will continue to get worse.
              Mike if you drive by the "welfare" building in Troy you'll see some pretty expensive cars parked outside. Wait awhile and you'll see people coming out with a bunch of kids getting into those cars and driving away.
              I used to do the grounds maintenance there and it was disgusting listening to those people talking outside while they had a smoke.They had the attitude of if they needed more money, they'd have another kid.
              I'm not saying all welfare recipients are like that, but there sure are alot who think they are entitled to what they call free money.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153713].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

              Actually, I do.... welfare rant.....problem is real and in THIS state will continue to get worse.
              That really does sound like a problem in your state Mike. I'm not sure why you think I would want to defend welfare fraud, if that is what is actually happening in your example. I also don't see the relevance to a minimum wage proposal. Well, actually maybe I do. It was stated in this thread earlier that the minimum income, if enacted along with eliminating all other social welfare programs, would make gaming the welfare system much harder, so perhaps you are presenting a good case in favor of the minimum income??
              Signature
              Over 50 Dating
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155253].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                That really does sound like a problem in your state Mike. I'm not sure why you think I would want to defend welfare fraud, if that is what is actually happening in your example. I also don't see the relevance to a minimum wage proposal. Well, actually maybe I do. It was stated in this thread earlier that the minimum income, if ennacted along with eliminating all other social welfare programs, would make gaming the welfare system much harder, so perhaps you are presenting a good case in favor of the minimum income??
                My post was in response to the comment to Gary about being able to drive by a community and tell that the entire neighborhood is on welfare.

                This is a live and real example of one that is. Just one - of which I know there's more.

                And if a minimum income could - in the long run - keep people from gaming a welfare system, which in turn could save me and other tax PAYERS a few bucks, then yes. I am for it.

                But call me jaded - I still don't believe in Utopia
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155263].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author garyv
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                It was stated in this thread earlier that the minimum income, if enacted along with eliminating all other social welfare programs, would make gaming the welfare system much harder, so perhaps you are presenting a good case in favor of the minimum income??
                Making a system larger, does not make it harder to game - quite the opposite.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155302].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                  Making a system larger, does not make it harder to game - quite the opposite.
                  Well, actually it wouldn't make the welfare system larger. It would eliminate it. How would someone game a minimum income? I can think of forging a citizenship perhaps, but what other ways would it be gamed?
                  Signature
                  Over 50 Dating
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9155480].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Well, actually it wouldn't make the welfare system larger. It would eliminate it. How would someone game a minimum income? I can think of forging a citizenship perhaps, but what other ways would it be gamed?
                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                    I can guess Thom's comments revolve around your seeming opinion that the ends justify the means.

                    I think the idea might have some merit, but how to achieve it is the sticking point.

                    But I could be wrong...
                    One thing that would have to change in the US is the open borders, 'look the other way', immigration policy of the last few administrations.

                    Instead of being known for the 'American Dream' (whether that's realistic now is another discussion) we'd be known for the 'American Handout'.

                    I don't see it ever happening.
                    Signature

                    The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                    Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156021].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
                      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                      One thing that would have to change in the US is the open borders, 'look the other way', immigration policy of the last few administrations.

                      Instead of being known for the 'American Dream' (whether that's realistic now is another discussion) we'd be known for the 'American Handout'.

                      I don't see it ever happening.
                      Stopping that kind of immigration, or even putting a major dent in it, is impossible without sealing off - and militarizing - the land border with Mexico. Just out of curiosity, is that something you'd be in favor of?
                      Signature

                      Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                      _______________________________________________
                      "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156209].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                        Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                        Stopping that kind of immigration, or even putting a major dent in it, is impossible without sealing off - and militarizing - the land border with Mexico. Just out of curiosity, is that something you'd be in favor of?
                        I don't see where he said anything about stopping it. He said it has to change. I love when people think in extreme's this way just to prove some point

                        But Steve is right. While I agree that stopping is impossible, we CAN tighten it up. And more importantly, we can stop saying "gee, yes they're here illegally, but they just want to work" (or some such) then hand them a SS card, drivers licenses and free health care.

                        If they want to come here, make them go through channels.
                        Signature

                        Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156231].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                          Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                          I don't see where he said anything about stopping it. He said it has to change. I love when people think in extreme's this way just to prove some point
                          Well, we COULD treat everyone the way the law USED to work. If companies can't account for paid money, they should pay taxes on it. If they are ever caught paying an illegal, have them pay fines, etc...

                          But Steve is right. While I agree that stopping is impossible, we CAN tighten it up. And more importantly, we can stop saying "gee, yes they're here illegally, but they just want to work" (or some such) then hand them a SS card, drivers licenses and free health care.
                          HERE'S a thought! How about....

                          SS CARD? Apply! Follow all the laws! STUDY! Learn English! Pass the citizenship test, etc... THEN we'll talk!

                          Drivers License? You need what you can't have, so NO LICENSE, and treat driving without a license more harshly. WHY should I have to pay more for being hit by an unlicensed driver? There should be a tax on those people encouraging them to come here to pay for such garbage.

                          Free health care? GO HOME!!!!!!

                          If they want to come here, make them go through channels.
                          EXACTLY!

                          So they want to work. BIG DEAL! US citizens are complaining THEY can't get work. US citizens should come first in the US! I'm not going to OTHER countries illegally and requesting to work THERE! HECK, I even balk at the idea of them paying taxes. Let's say that all jobs paid the same.

                          An ILLEGAL presents a net benefit to the government of TAX-UNEMPLOYMENT! They take a job a US citizen could have. ALSO, money is likely moved out of the country.
                          A US Citizen presents a net benefit to the government of TAX.

                          And there are taxes an illegal would never dare to pay.

                          Steve
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156305].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author SteveJohnson
                        Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                        Stopping that kind of immigration, or even putting a major dent in it, is impossible without sealing off - and militarizing - the land border with Mexico. Just out of curiosity, is that something you'd be in favor of?
                        The fence that was by law supposed to be built would have put a 'major dent' in the level of illegal immigration from Mexico.

                        And as far as militarization goes, have you tried to cross a US border at one of the official crossings lately? The not-so-breaking news is the crossings are already 'militarized'

                        Just so there's no question, I am TOTALLY in favor of more effective border control. Absolutely. If that means flying drones to patrol the border, then do it. If building a fence will help, then get on it.

                        You seem - correct me if I'm wrong, I could very well be - to have said in regard to Obamacare something to the effect that "It's the law, get over it."

                        There are laws in place governing immigration into this country. Do they not mean anything to you? Or do you think the executive of the country - whomever it may be - should be able to selectively enforce our laws?
                        Signature

                        The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

                        Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156317].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
                          Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                          You seem - correct me if I'm wrong, I could very well be - to have said in regard to Obamacare something to the effect that "It's the law, get over it."

                          There are laws in place governing immigration into this country. Do they not mean anything to you? Or do you think the executive of the country - whomever it may be - should be able to selectively enforce our laws?
                          Fair question. For the record, I'm extremely disappointed with how porous the borders are (and always have been). From the perspective of someone who's done a fair amount of international traveling, I have no problem with the immigration laws themselves, and the executive branch should be enforcing all laws, regardless of who runs it. Hope that was clear enough.
                          Signature

                          Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                          _______________________________________________
                          "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157524].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by SteveJohnson View Post

                      One thing that would have to change in the US is the open borders, 'look the other way', immigration policy of the last few administrations.

                      Instead of being known for the 'American Dream' (whether that's realistic now is another discussion) we'd be known for the 'American Handout'.

                      I don't see it ever happening.

                      I thought people coming in illegally was at an all-time low and people being deported was at an all time high.

                      The vast majority of those type of people already here are not leaving - so what happens next?
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160074].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                        It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.

                        Want to "create jobs"? Put people to work on the border building a real wall. Build temp housing for them to live in (more jobs) and then turn that housing into low cost housing after the wall is built in that area. Pay them govt contractor salaries and provide mess tents so they can eat on site.

                        Or - Instead of releasing thousands of military personal into an economy where jobs are scarce - why not put them on the border and get it under control once and for all?

                        We've been counting those turned back while trying to get across our border as "deported" so the numbers looked better than they were for several years.

                        We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.
                        Signature
                        Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                        I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160216].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                          It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.

                          Want to "create jobs"? Put people to work on the border building a real wall. Build temp housing for them to live in (more jobs) and then turn that housing into low cost housing after the wall is built in that area. Pay them govt contractor salaries and provide mess tents so they can eat on site.

                          Or - Instead of releasing thousands of military personal into an economy where jobs are scarce - why not put them on the border and get it under control once and for all?

                          We've been counting those turned back while trying to get across our border as "deported" so the numbers looked better than they were for several years.

                          We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.
                          Ironically, just this morning, I heard a story.... Amarine made a wrong turn, ended up in mexico, and was JAILED! He has been there a MONTH so far!

                          Marine jailed for driving into Mexico with guns | Military.com

                          Steve
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160493].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                          It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.
                          ...
                          We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.
                          The Swiss are much luckier: it's extremely hard to cross the terrain on their borders - which is why they maintained independence for so long.
                          Signature

                          Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                          _______________________________________________
                          "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160545].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                            The Swiss are much luckier: it's extremely hard to cross the terrain on their borders - which is why they maintained independence for so long.
                            I toured a few countries in the late 80s. Switzerland was the ONLY one that asked to seemy passport. THEY noticed that denmark stamped it wrong!
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160666].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
                              Instead of a vote on a minimum income of $33,000 for all US citizens,

                              How about a vote by US citizens for a MAXIMUM income of $33,000 for all US Congress(wo)men?

                              Retirement pay to be adjusted (down) accordingly.

                              That pay can not be raised until ALL on-book and off-book deficits of the Federal Government are paid in full.

                              Joe Mobley
                              Signature

                              .

                              Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9160970].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                          It's a bit of a joke no matter who is in power. We've never finished a wall. Look at Israel - I don't approve of the walls built there...but they are plain HIGH walls and they work pretty well to keep people in or out.
                          Israel is much, much smaller than the US, with a much, much bigger danger from its neighbors.

                          Want to "create jobs"? Put people to work on the border building a real wall. Build temp housing for them to live in (more jobs) and then turn that housing into low cost housing after the wall is built in that area. Pay them govt contractor salaries and provide mess tents so they can eat on site.

                          Or - Instead of releasing thousands of military personal into an economy where jobs are scarce - why not put them on the border and get it under control once and for all?
                          Or, create and enforce laws that penalize the people that employ illegals and use the wall building resources to build renewable green energy.

                          I would seriously consider using military on the border to help with the drug cartel problems though.

                          We can close our border if we have the will to do it. So far we don't. That could change overnight if a terrorist attack happens that can be traced to an illegal border crossing.
                          It already happened with 9/11, but I guess we didn't think building a wall across the Canadian/US border was worth it.

                          BTW, when speaking of walls, does anyone consider the impact on nature and environment? Walls keep wildlife in and out, too. Wildlife in the desert SW is already under enough stress. Now people want to place walls between them and maybe their only source of water in many areas.
                          Signature
                          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9161011].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                            Kurt - My wall comments are half tongue in cheek.

                            I've been hearing pols on both sides talk about "a wall" since the 80's.
                            That was going to happen right after 3 million illegals were given amnesty. Then had more millions given amnesty and a wall was going to be built. If we're going to build a wall - let's finish a wall and get it over with. If we aren't, let's admit it and move on.
                            Signature
                            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world will change forever for that one dog.

                            I wish offended people would react like fainting goats and quietly tip over.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9161167].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author garyv
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    Well, actually it wouldn't make the welfare system larger. It would eliminate it. How would someone game a minimum income? I can think of forging a citizenship perhaps, but what other ways would it be gamed?
                    Ok - I must admit I may have been looking at this wrong. Are you saying that this minimum income would only be for those that are working? Or is this income for everyone?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156198].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Originally Posted by garyv View Post

                      Ok - I must admit I may have been looking at this wrong. Are you saying that this minimum income would only be for those that are working? Or is this income for everyone?
                      It would be for everyone Gary.
                      Signature
                      Over 50 Dating
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156470].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author garyv
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        It would be for everyone Gary.

                        So I guess I wasn't looking at this wrong. This is like welfare on steroids.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157412].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ForumGuru
            Banned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            For one thing, people can't work and get welfare usually, but they can work and receive a minimum income.
            #1) The fact is tons of people work under the table AND receive welfare benefits. Seriously, if you don't realize this fact you have your head stuck in the sand, or you have not known very many people that have collected welfare benefits.

            #2 Another fact is you can work, and make a substantial amount of money, and still collect some benefits from state welfare departments and federal anti-poverty programs.

            Check the Pennsylvania SNAP Income Limit Eligibility Table for example...



            SNAP Income Limits

            Checkout the amount of income you can earn in Iowa and still apply for Section 8 housing..



            https://www.dmgov.org/Departments/Ho.../section8.aspx

            And we know earn some cash working and still get a big discount on Obamacare:



            http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news...are-subsidies/

            Talk about minimum income??? OK...let's talk about Welfare paying more than teachers, secretaries, and even computer programmers earn.



            The state-by-state estimates are based on a hypothetical family participating in about seven of the 126 federal anti-poverty programs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; the Women, Infants and Children program; Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; and receiving help on housing and utilities.

            In Hawaii, that translates into a 2013 package of $49,175 — up $7,265 from an inflation-adjusted $41,910 in 1995. Rounding out the top five areas for welfare benefits, along with their 2013 amounts, were: the District of Columbia ($43,099), Massachusetts ($42,515), Connecticut ($38,761) and New Jersey ($38,728).

            The authors found that in 11 states, “welfare pays more than the average pretax first-year wage for a teacher [in those states]. In 39 states, it pays more than the starting wage for a secretary. And, in the three most generous states a person on welfare can take home more money than an entry-level computer programmer."

            Work or Welfare: What Pays More? - Real Time Economics - WSJ
            Cheers

            -don
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9477143].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      I'm having a very hard time buying the claim that most people who receive only a basic income will be content to sit around all day doing nothing.

      Basic incomes let you survive, but don't offer much else. Wouldn't everyone would prefer to work so that they can live more decently?
      Sorry, you CAN'T argue FACT! Denmark did studies and found it was true! HERE people have been interviewed, etc... that are DOING IT.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153140].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Heck, I one time volunteered for a charity. One WOMAN called a work application a RESUME, and seemed to indicate that it was the first job she applied for. As I recall, she had a child, but she wasn't some young kid. But she was applying for a minimum wage job! HECK, you hear things like the minimum wage now. Last I heard, it lost by 6 votes.

    YKW is talking about how it will do all these fantastic things. He DOESN'T talk about how he recently cut the REAL minimum wage by 27.5%! He ALSO cut per capita productivity by an average of 27.5%! Coincidentally, the minimum HOURLY wage will raise raise the REAL minimum wage by a little less than 28.22%! This means that in terms of REAL INCOME, the average VERY lucky minimum wage worker will get a 0.72% raise! SURE, they may get an average extra 11 extra hours free time, but that is only the LUCKY ones!

    He ALSO didn't mention how the CBO said:

    What Effects Would Those Options Have?
    The $10.10 option would have substantially larger effects on employment and income than the $9.00 option would—because more workers would see their wages rise; the change in their wages would be greater; and, CBO expects, employment would be more responsive to a minimum-wage increase that was larger and was subsequently adjusted for inflation. The net effect of either option on the federal budget would probably be small.

    Effects of the $10.10 Option on Employment and Income
    Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.
    http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44995

    Frankly, I don't think they are figuring that right. Things will be WORSE! You can't just keep raising the wage, and it has gone up a LOT this year! The only difference HERE is that the employees may actually get a few of the things called dollars. I hesitate to call them dollars, as the value WILL drop, making the whole thing a WASH, as it always does!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9153172].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_r_v9cYBPY

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pCOTlYPn0U

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9154914].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    What I don't understand is that this has been tried perhaps EVERYWHERE! It has been tried in the US about 29 times since 1938(inclusive). And the success rate is obviously ZERO! But people aways seem to think the NEXT time it will lead to some kind of paradise for all.

    EVENTUALLY, everyone will be a millionaire. Why don't we pay everyone $663.13 an hour? HEY, everyone will be a millionare! Never mind that milk might cost $660 per gallon? Never mind that all the pensions will be TOAST! The poor will all be MILLIONARES! I mean it will happen ANYWAY! We will just speed it up some.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156173].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tj
    Minimum Income for every citizen would not work out at all because their is no need for the citizen to produce an equal amount of useable productivity.

    Timo
    Signature
    BIG BRAND Copywriting - Sales Letters + Bonuses for Warriors. $97 - Guaranteed! | OFFER NOT CONVERTING ? Need People to take action NOW?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9156705].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    I'll settle for a decent min wage slowly but surely integrated into the economy.

    Its a fact that growth in income along with the growth of the economy has not happened for the average American.

    The income line is flat for the last 30 odd years - when compared to inflation and income inequality has mushroomed and non wealthy Americans share of the income generated in the economy has gone way down from the glory days of 1945 to about 1980.

    Yes, 1980 IMHO, is a clearly demarcation point in the prosperity and standard of living of average earning Americans.

    For one, the top tax rates were cut from about 70% to about 35% and that's a big cut enabling the wealthy to keep more of what they earned coupled with the passive income tax rates being cut at the same time or so, so its no wonder wealthy Americans have made out handsomely over the last 30 years.

    The federal gov moved away from working for the middle class and began working for the wealthy and large corporations.

    IMHO...

    - The top rates need to go up to at least 45% and it needs to be actually collected.

    - The gravy giveaways in the tax code for the already wealthy and large corporations need to be rescinded.

    - Passive income needs to be taxed the same as ordinary income.

    My question is why should investment/passive income not be taxed the same as ordinary income when the rational for doing so had long been shedded - thanks to the fact that most investment income these days has nothing to do with helping the economy in general?

    The income the feds receive from these "revenue enhancements" (that won't affect 95% of the American people)...

    ... can be used to invest in the country and the people of the country and will help usher in a new American golden age.

    BTW Tim,

    There's a new book out that says that capitalism in its natural state - that is without heavy regulation etc. and fairly high top tax rates will...





    ... naturally produce a society in which the lives of most of the population is financially precarious - mostly treading water, and also characterized by a much smaller middle class than America had in the post WW2 boom and a much larger poor class. In short IMHO, a feudal society.

    Unfettered capitalism is bad for the vast majority of Americans but great for the already wealthy and large corporations.
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157126].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I settle for a decent min wage slowly but surely integrated with the economy.
      Right now, the average person getting a minimum wage is making a veritable FORTUNE today by measures as recent as 1975!!!!!!! A year ago, They made only $10 less per year than the average american in 1979!

      Its a fact that growth in income along with the growth of the economy has not happened for the average American.
      WOW! OK, this year you are saying that the minimum wage should have gone up by maybe 0.00725/hour! OK, NOW, that means the YEARLY income should have gone up $10.93 That is the full amount they should have gotten THIS YEAR! But what happens when it is revised down? Should they have to give it back? If computers do well, does that mean baggers should get a raise?

      The income line is flat for the last 30 odd years - when compared to inflation and income inequality has mushroomed and non wealthy Americans share of the income generated in the economy has gone way down from the glory days of 1945 to about 1980.
      Yeah, NASTY thing that inflation! So why do you want to play both sides of the street? PICK A SIDE! You can make the poor RICH in number and low in value, or recognize that pay is supposed to be based on supply and contribution, and there will ALWAYS be "inequality". HEY, I never wanted to be a billionare. Those that got there honestly I have NOTHING against.

      Yes, 1980 IMHO, is a clearly demarcation point in the prosperity and standard of living of average earning Americans.

      For one, the top tax rates were cut from about 70% to about 35% and that's a big cut enabling the wealthy to keep more of what they earned coupled with the passive income tax rates being cut at the same time or so, so its no wonder wealthy Americans have made out handsomely over the last 30 years.
      Looking at merely the tax rates doesn't cut it! I mean I can look at 2%, and say HEY, they got to keep ******AT LEAST****** 98%! But you can NOT look at 70% and say they paid the government 70%.

      HEY, I LIVED through the 80s! They got rid of a LOT of deductions! They ALSO added maximums. They ALSO started classing income, and charging tax there. When they made those changes, my taxes went UP! GRANTED, I was not one that paid 70% earlier, but things that hit me hit many of the rich.

      IMHO...

      - The top rates need to go up to at least 45% and it needs to be actually collected.
      WHY? And you want this in ADDITION to the minimum wage and healthcare? NOT going to happen! People will leave left and right.

      - The gravy giveaways in the tax code for the already wealthy and large corporations need to be rescinded.
      I wonder! have you EVER looked at those "giveaways"?

      - Passive income needs to be taxed the same as ordinary income.
      OK, a lot of retirees are going to hate your guts, as they will have to go back to work, etc....

      My question is why should investment/passive income not be taxed the same as ordinary income when the rational for doing so had long been shedded - thanks to the fact that most investment income these days has nothing to do with helping the economy in general?
      The government would have to SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD if "passive income" stopped! You know those mortgages paid for by BONDS, and the US savings BONDS, MUNICIPAL BONDS and the Treasury BONDS!? And how do you think facebook and google got to be able to do so much? STOCK! Doesn't do much? Yeah right!

      BTW you will HATE this! Municipal bonds are often free of ALL city and state tax! Federal bonds are free of city, state, AND federal tax!

      The income the feds receive from these revenue enhancements (that won't affect 95% of the American people)...
      ACTUALLY, it WILL affect about 95% of the american people!

      ... can be used to invest in the country and the people of the country and help usher in a new American golden age.
      You REALLY don't think the "public sector" won't want "their cut"? DREAM ON!


      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157471].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Right now, the average person getting a minimum wage is making a veritable FORTUNE today by measures as recent as 1975!!!!!!! A year ago, They made only $10 less per year than the average american in 1979!



        WOW! OK, this year you are saying that the minimum wage should have gone up by maybe 0.00725/hour! OK, NOW, that means the YEARLY income should have gone up $10.93 That is the full amount they should have gotten THIS YEAR! But what happens when it is revised down? Should they have to give it back? If computers do well, does that mean baggers should get a raise?



        Yeah, NASTY thing that inflation! So why do you want to play both sides of the street? PICK A SIDE! You can make the poor RICH in number and low in value, or recognize that pay is supposed to be based on supply and contribution, and there will ALWAYS be "inequality". HEY, I never wanted to be a billionare. Those that got there honestly I have NOTHING against.



        Looking at merely the tax rates doesn't cut it! I mean I can look at 2%, and say HEY, they got to keep ******AT LEAST****** 98%! But you can NOT look at 70% and say they paid the government 70%.

        HEY, I LIVED through the 80s! They got rid of a LOT of deductions! They ALSO added maximums. They ALSO started classing income, and charging tax there. When they made those changes, my taxes went UP! GRANTED, I was not one that paid 70% earlier, but things that hit me hit many of the rich.



        WHY? And you want this in ADDITION to the minimum wage and healthcare? NOT going to happen! People will leave left and right.



        I wonder! have you EVER looked at those "giveaways"?



        OK, a lot of retirees are going to hate your guts, as they will have to go back to work, etc....



        The government would have to SHUT DOWN FOR GOOD if "passive income" stopped! You know those mortgages paid for by BONDS, and the US savings BONDS, MUNICIPAL BONDS and the Treasury BONDS!? And how do you think facebook and google got to be able to do so much? STOCK! Doesn't do much? Yeah right!



        ACTUALLY, it WILL affect about 95% of the american people!



        You REALLY don't think the "public sector" won't want "their cut"? DREAM ON!


        Steve

        Say what you will but...

        Those tax related policies I endorsed above just happened to coincide with average Americans having a very high standard of living - in fact the envy of the world.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157486].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Say what you will but...

          Those tax related policies I endorsed above just happened to coincide with average Americans having a very high standard of living in fact the envy of the world.
          OK, this tax rate or higher was from 1936 to 1981

          They ALSO had LOTS of deductions. And the actual tax RATE, and the number of people in higher tax brackets kept going up! In 1936, MOST paid 4%. In 1981, MOST paid 21%.

          But HEY! Discussing this is dumb. Just go in withdraw ALL YOUR MONEY, and BURN IT! Take the ashes, and throw them down a sewer drain.

          Are you better off? If so, GLAD TO HEAR IT! Ask all the poor to do the same, and we can live in peace. If I want to suffer, that is MY problem! Are you NOT better off? If not, what are you advocating?

          1. The supreme court is mostly to harass people and, SUPPOSEDLY, balance out the others. Of course, they are ALSO supposed to be limited by the constitution.
          2. The Executive branch is to let the public know about the state of the union, harass people, start wars and, SUPPOSEDLY, balance out the others. Of course, they are ALSO supposed to be limited by the constitution.
          3. Congress is SUPPOSEDLY to lay out a budget, get financing, harass people, and balance out the others! Of course, they are ALSO supposed to be restricted by Section 8!

          FIRST of all, CONGRESS hasn't laid out a reasonable budget in about a CENTURY! They decided that the taxpayers should pay for ALL, and figure a law is a law, and so they can do ANYTHING they want!

          Among that is collecting taxpayers money so THEY can spend it as THEY see fit!

          And things like Education are being made WORSE, and they are paying MORE to do so. I guess that DOES help publishing, building, teachers, and tutors. But WHY get more books to make things worse? WHY build new buildings to make things worse? WHY pay teachers to dumb things down? WHY pay tutors to do the teachers jobs after paying the teachers to NOT work?

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9157590].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Unfettered capitalism is bad for the vast majority of Americans but great for the already wealthy and large corporations.
      Let's have a look...

      First, I'll toss out "unfettered" as it is just an emotion charged word meant to vilify any form of capitalism. Now, let's see what we have,

      capitalism is bad for the vast majority of Americans but great for the already wealthy and large corporations.
      Hmm... I wonder if there might be a reasonable example of capitalism at work that most people could understand?

      Could the answer be right in front of your face?! The laptop I am typing on has over 100 times the specs of my first computer at about 1/6 the cost.

      I, like many of you, have a cell-phone (smart-phone?) with better specs than most computers of just a few years ago.

      I have a less-than-$200 tablet that I can video call a virtual assistant in the Philippines or pretty much anywhere in the world.

      Yea, capitalism has certainly been a huge kick in the butt to the vast majority of Americans.

      Who the hell needs that new Telegraph-thing when we have the Pony Express? What we need are faster horses!

      Joe Capitalist Mobley
      Signature

      .

      Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171535].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
        Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

        Let's have a look...

        First, I'll toss out "unfettered" as it is just an emotion charged word meant to vilify any form of capitalism.
        Nope. "Unfettered" in this context means "unregulated." As a result, the rest of what you said misses the point.
        Signature

        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
        _______________________________________________
        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171675].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          Nope. "Unfettered" in this context means "unregulated." As a result, the rest of what you said misses the point.
          Totally. -------------------------------------------
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171694].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
          Nope!

          The computer / cell phone / technology market in general is a good (though not perfect) example of a reasonably regulated capitalist market. That market has benefited both the "great and the small" for decades.

          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          Nope. "Unfettered" in this context means "unregulated." As a result, the rest of what you said misses the point.
          I see facts, logic and reason are not high priorities to you.

          Joe Mobley
          Signature

          .

          Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171724].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
            Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

            Nope!

            The computer / cell phone / technology market in general is a good (though not perfect) example of a reasonably regulated capitalist market. That market has benefited both the "great and the small" for decades.



            I see facts, logic and reason are not high priorities to you.

            Joe Mobley
            When all else fails, you try to get the thread closed, I see.
            Signature

            Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
            _______________________________________________
            "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171858].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

        Let's have a look...

        First, I'll toss out "unfettered" as it is just an emotion charged word meant to vilify any form of capitalism. Now, let's see what we have,

        Hmm... I wonder if there might be a reasonable example of capitalism at work that most people could understand?

        Could the answer be right in front of your face?! The laptop I am typing on has over 100 times the specs of my first computer at about 1/6 the cost.

        I, like many of you, have a cell-phone (smart-phone?) with better specs than most computers of just a few years ago.

        I have a less-than-$200 tablet that I can video call a virtual assistant in the Philippines or pretty much anywhere in the world.

        Yea, capitalism has certainly been a huge kick in the butt to the vast majority of Americans.

        Who the hell needs that new Telegraph-thing when we have the Pony Express? What we need are faster horses!

        Joe Capitalist Mobley
        How much of this new technology is manufactured in your country?

        The technology you describe has made a variety of tasks easier to perform.

        They have also destroyed the manufacturing base of yours and other countries.

        It all depends on which you value more. Would you like to see more of your fellow countrymen in decent jobs, or would you like to "outsource" everything to boost the Phillipino economy?

        The inherent flaw in "unfettered" (I don't have a problem with using that word) capitalism is that nothing else matters except money. Which is of course why you would rather pay someone in the Phillipines than one of your fellow countrymen.

        Yea, capitalism has certainly been a huge kick in the butt to the vast majority of Americans.
        Especially those who used to make a living making stuff. You know the ones who used to work in all those empty factories that fill your country.
        Signature
        Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
        So that blind people can hate them as well.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172096].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          How much of this new technology is manufactured in your country?
          A lot of it USED to be, and was created here! Much of the rest is based on things that were developed here.

          The technology you describe has made a variety of tasks easier to perform.
          YEP, including OTHERS! HECK, they have robotic harvesters for crops!

          They have also destroyed the manufacturing base of yours and other countries.
          That is because of the GOVERNMENT! There is an international conspiracy. I COULD say it started one place, and others do it simply to compete, but there are LOTS of similarities, so the rules are coming from the SAME place. Countries that I KNOW are affected include canada, the UK, and germany, as well as the US.

          It all depends on which you value more. Would you like to see more of your fellow countrymen in decent jobs, or would you like to "outsource" everything to boost the Phillipino economy?
          If we outsourced EVERYTHING, we would REALLY have problems.

          The inherent flaw in "unfettered" (I don't have a problem with using that word) capitalism is that nothing else matters except money. Which is of course why you would rather pay someone in the Phillipines than one of your fellow countrymen.
          Are you saying we should pay a million dollars for a computer? PROFIT MATTERS! The government gives subsidies and special consideration for such things. Companies have to do all this to compete. I could tell you a few other things, alas....

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172114].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author brunski57
    This is NOT a New idea! It has been tried thought-out history with devastating results.

    It is very stupid, but there are enough stupid people in the world, who will keep trying to make it work. But it never will... because it goes against human nature.

    It attracts the lowest common dominator of humans... who are basically parasites. Eventually the host and the parasite die!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9165906].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by brunski57 View Post

      This is NOT a New idea! It has been tried thought-out history with devastating results.
      Nope. Hasn't been done before. We're talking about a minimum income in a democratic country that is top ranked for economic freedom. Switzerland is #4 according to the Heritage foundation. Name one other time something like this has been done. USSR? China? Not the same thing at all.
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9169213].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Millionaires Support Raising the Minimum Wage And Higher Taxes On The Rich | ThinkProgress
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170114].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Let's dispense with all emotion here. Let's DISPENSE with the idea that you are talking about 1/2 of "the 1%". Let's even not both with the question of why they don't pay more.

      WHY should perhaps 50% of the US pay more taxes at the request of 0.5%? I know you might be dyslexic, or not see clearly. THAT is why I always try to prefix a decimal point with at least one digit. But 0.5%is, ironically, ONE PERCENT of 50%! So WHY do I claim 50%? Because I found out quickly when I was a kid that anyone that appears to have money seems rich to MANY claiming to have less. ALSO, taxes are NEVER levied just on the rich.

      FURTHER, WHY pay more anyway? If you pay more, they think they have more, and they SPEND more! Paying them money is like giving a young kid a credit card!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170264].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Let's dispense with all emotion here. Let's DISPENSE with the idea that you are talking about 1/2 of "the 1%". Let's even not both with the question of why they don't pay more.

        WHY should perhaps 50% of the US pay more taxes at the request of 0.5%? I know you might be dyslexic, or not see clearly. THAT is why I always try to prefix a decimal point with at least one digit. But 0.5%is, ironically, ONE PERCENT of 50%! So WHY do I claim 50%? Because I found out quickly when I was a kid that anyone that appears to have money seems rich to MANY claiming to have less. ALSO, taxes are NEVER levied just on the rich.

        FURTHER, WHY pay more anyway? If you pay more, they think they have more, and they SPEND more! Paying them money is like giving a young kid a credit card!

        Steve
        Not sure what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure your economic attitudes won't help this country become a nation in which there is plenty of opportunity and prosperity for anyone who wants it.

        There's really no use of getting into an economic discussion with you since we can't seem to agree on basic statistics.
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170740].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Not sure what you're talking about but I'm pretty sure your economic attitudes won't help this country become a nation in which there is plenty of opportunity and prosperity for anyone who wants it.

          There's really no use of getting into an economic discussion with you since we can't seem to agree on basic statistics.
          The fact that we even have a platform to agree proves there WOULD be plenty of opportunity and prosperity, because there HAS been.

          And of course everyone wants it! Who wouldn't like to be able to go anywhere in piece and be the sole user of anything.

          SOME say they want it ABSOLUTELY! Some of them even work to that goal in the only feasible way, and become DICTATORS! Of course SOME forgo the personal peace part and become CRIMINALS within another society!

          SOME try to APPEAR reasonable, and claim some as a right, where they can sit back and not worry about, some "baseline" existence. This is what the governments are moving towards now. BTW that baseline almost ALWAYS moves up! There WAS a time when heated homes, electricity, gas, running water, computers, tv, etc... didn't exist, but they are now ALL in that baseline!

          And SOME try to work towards something BETWEEN those goals by providing something of value to others. THIS is what we had and THIS is what I want!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170822].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Hopeless Bromantic
            "0.5% is one percent of 50%??!!"

            Wow. Just, wow. I'm going to have to save that one.
            Signature

            Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
            _______________________________________________
            "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170883].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

              "0.5% is one percent of 50%??!!"

              Wow. Just, wow. I'm going to have to save that one.
              I think you know.... 50/100=.5

              But YEAH, numerically....

              100*50%=50
              100*.5%=0.5

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9170959].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    It IS ironic! A person spends NOTHING to get where they are, LEARNS nothing to get where they are, RISKS nothing to be where they are, and they want a minimum wage. That SAME person does business with someone that SPENT a LOT and/or LEARNED a lot, and/or RISKS a lot, and complains about even some of the lowest prices being to high.

    And what do KIDS do now? Minimum wage jobs were supposed to be ENTRY LEVEL! One college said that they allow various students to work for minimum wage, 8.25/hour. If they show they are good workers, their pay is bumped up to 15.75/hour! They said that, at 10,10, fewer students will get the opportunity!

    THEY want regulation to make THEIR wage as high as possible, but regulation to LOWER the other guys wage.

    YEAH, that computer got to where it is because of CAPITALISM!!!!!!!

    OH YEAH, it must have been HORRIBLE! In 1969, a JAPANESE company asked for 12 chips for a new calculator. Yeah, those capiltalist pig idiots in the US said effectively, NAW!!!!! We're too lazy! Will give you FOUR! *****BUT***** ONE could be PROGRAMMED for whatever you want! A little 16 pin IC. But HEY, it was the first time a CPU had ever been put onto an IC. The company was probably a virtual UNKNOWN! It was known as INTEL! In a couple years, it became world famous!

    And YEAH, NASTY CAPITALISM! A company DARED to create another CPU, MOTOROLA! INTEL HAD COMPETITION! OOOPS! They had to up their game. Every time they did, the price went down as the power went up. But WAIT, ANOTHER company popped up, and they had to worry MORE, EXXON of all companies! They created a subsidiary called ZILOG!

    So INTEL made a mistake! It was a DISASTER! Competitors were nipping at their heels, but the public wanted SOMETHING! Intel ran out of resources! So they made a deal with some companies. Once they succeeded, they ran a huge campaign trying to KILL their earlier failure. ALAS, nearly EVERY company that helped them out merely upgraded the design! OH, they sued ALL the companies until they cried uncle, or went out of business. One in its near final gasp uttered, when they lost the final suit,.... "TOO LATE! " They redesigned the chip! So a competitor existed, just as they thought they won. THAT was AMD.

    OH, there have been others that have come and gone, but they spread the technology, and intel made it that much better. One, for example, came out with low power technology. I think intel bought them, but about that time, INTEL started using low power technology.

    ONE decided they should probably do only what intel did with the 80286(That failure I mentioned earlier), so they are. THEY are ARM. Although perhaps 100% intel instruction set incompatible, they have become a viable competitor to intel. Even APPLE, and GOOGLE, uses them.

    Now intel COULD have stopped with the 4004. People could have been happy. But capitalism FORCED innovation. Oh, and some DID get rich!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9171619].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    The whole idea of capitalism is that it IS regulated!

    If a price is too high, people won't buy it! The government is now even FORCING people to buy what they can't afford!

    If the public won't buy it at the lowest reasonable price, the product will CEASE to be offered! The government NOW may NEVER discontinue such a product!

    If a product has some failing, it will eventually likely be fixed to keep the product profitable. The government now may NEVER fix a problem!

    Of course, risks and regulations fall into this as well. Tryptophan, for example, is a REQUIRED nutrient and was sold for over a decade or so, but ONE foreign company came up with a stupid untested theory and about 20 deaths, out of MILLIONS, caused a scare that caused the FDA to BAN it. They stopped selling it during that ban.

    Take that processor, that I spoke of earlier. INTEL had to make all those chips and sell this chip, that birthed an entire industry, for about what a company was willing to pay for a chip that could only do basic math! If they failed to hit that mark, the company would likely go ELSEWHERE! HP, TI, and likely a few other companies were likely offering these chips around that time, and could certainly produce such chips. And that is just in the US! There were a LOT of other companies capable of fabricating such chips.

    As for monopolies? There IS the Sherman Anti Trust act! And many of these companies fear competition SO much, that they will quickly patent or trademark an aspect. One company recently(only a couple months ago) had an ENTIRE SHIPMENT of product SEIZED!!!!!!!! WHY? Was it contraband? NO! Was it harmful? NO! Did it violate any trademarks? Not really. Was it deceptive? NOPE! It was seized because it was the WRONG COLOR!!!!!!

    A competitor had a special kind of trademark on case and panel color, and the government seized all such products with that color scheme. Luckily, the owner of the other devices made a special exception and gave the company thedollar value of their product, and the company got the color scheme changed to avoid it in the future.

    But HEY, INTEL patented a lot of THEIR CPU. They sued the pants off of companies they had no right to do so to. The manufacturing agreement included the right to use the technology, and to sell the finished product. Intel just figured that, when they killed the 286, that agreement would be worthless! They were WRONG!

    But AMD reworked the product, and ended up being a competitor. NOW, apparently, Intel is ahead. But AMD could pull ahead soon again. If they do, you can bet INTEL will. But AMD can't charge much more for their processor. If INTEL charged much more, they would QUICKLY lose market share.

    My new computer is an INTEL i5! If I were offered an i3 at the same price, AMD would get my business! If this computer cost $100 more, AMD would get my business. TRUE STORY!

    Yeah, capitalism, properly done, DOES limit ITSELF!

    HEY, Let's lookathow the US government regulates EDUCATION, ok?

    It costs a LOT, but people are forced to PAY!

    Since we are FORCED to pay the GOVERNMENT, we have to consider that money GONE if we use a private school. Private schools DO often cost LESS! VOUCHERS are an answer, but the unions are AGAINST it!

    We must ACCEPT what they do! A father recently(only DAYS ago) found that a school was leading his daughter through a perverted and pornographic book. He went to the schools meeting to discuss it, and was ARRESTED! http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dad-arre...ol-assignment/

    They are constantly making it WORSE!

    The government never worries about risks.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9172083].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned