It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Terrible Fear of Paying the Poor Too Much

page: 24
107
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

And if they don't earn enough to be able to "appropriately" dress/acquire transportation/feed themselves.....??

Not the responsibility of the company.
When in the world did people move away from the idea that you take care of yourself, to this attitude of everything needs to be handed to people by the Govt and who they work for.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

A responsible company will care about it's employees. Work/life balance is a big issue these days. You know that.

Sure do. That is why I work for who I do.
If they didn't, I would find employment elsewhere.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So yes....the hiring entity needs to ensure the hiree/employee has enough to sustain themselves -- so that the employee doesn''t have excessive absenteeism.


No, that is not what the company is there for. They are there to provide either a service and/or product to a customer.
The employment of people are a means to achieve the only goal a company has.


As a side note, I haven't forgotten about that list.




posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

And if they don't earn enough to be able to "appropriately" dress/acquire transportation/feed themselves.....??

Not the responsibility of the company.
When in the world did people move away from the idea that you take care of yourself, to this attitude of everything needs to be handed to people by the Govt and who they work for.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

A responsible company will care about it's employees. Work/life balance is a big issue these days. You know that.

Sure do. That is why I work for who I do.
If they didn't, I would find employment elsewhere.


originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
So yes....the hiring entity needs to ensure the hiree/employee has enough to sustain themselves -- so that the employee doesn''t have excessive absenteeism.


No, that is not what the company is there for. They are there to provide either a service and/or product to a customer.
The employment of people are a means to achieve the only goal a company has.


As a side note, I haven't forgotten about that list.



However as it is, companies whom heavily rely on minimum wage workers to turn a profit do so at the expense of the taxpayer, because with what they pay they would not have a workforce groomed and rested to work for their company. Thats why many companies which operate very successfully in America either find it undesirable to go global or find it impossible to do so.

If welfare for the working would be removed, then wages at state mandated minimum wage would not be a sufficient incentive to hold down a job that just pays minimum wage.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Merinda

Honestly, do you and everyone else that retort with the parroted living wage thing actually listen/read what is stated?


Remove Welfare, for all persons and companies. Welfare is for the individual to provide, not the Govt.

If I didn't have to pay so much in taxes, both personal and my business, I would be able to give more and hire people.

It still isn't the responsibility of the company to provide a certain wage to a person. They pay the going/negotiated rate for the work rendered.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: macman


When in the world did people move away from the idea that you take care of yourself,

Haven't disputed that.


to this attitude of everything needs to be handed to people by the Govt and

Nooo....
no....


who they work for.

Yes.

Because those people are working for the company they work for. Are they not entitled to be able to survive?? WITHOUT the government's (taxpayers') subsidies?



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: macman


Remove Welfare, for all persons and companies.

Okay, yes. Good idea. The key point there being companies. You and AugustusMaximus have both said as much, and I totally agree with you.

See, what needs to happen FIRST, is removing corporate welfare (which is allowing them to pay too little, so the govt has to 'bail them out' and also bail out the underpaid employees).



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 05:29 PM
link   
If all welfare would be removed then deflation would set in with catastrophic consequences for the economy and your buisness, untill everything would have adapted to the new normal, but your company and your credit would be belly up by then. If just welfare for the working would be removed, then companies would be forced to provide a wage high enough that entices people to come off welfare.

This would only hurt companies whom can not create a viable buisness model without indirect government handouts.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Merinda


If just welfare for the working would be removed, then companies would be forced to provide a wage high enough that entices people to come off welfare.

How would they be forced, though, Merinda?

When I talk about removing CORPORATE/COMPANY welfare, I'm talking about stopping how the government is indirectly (by giving the workers welfare) giving the companies welfare.

Do you see how they are linked?

ETA: And also - the tax havens available to the rich - the off-shoring and outsourcing which causes millions of job losses. That is also corporate welfare.

edit on 5/12/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Merinda


If just welfare for the working would be removed, then companies would be forced to provide a wage high enough that entices people to come off welfare.

How would they be forced, though, Merinda?

When I talk about removing CORPORATE/COMPANY welfare, I'm talking about stopping how the government is indirectly (by giving the workers welfare) giving the companies welfare.

Do you see how they are linked?

ETA: And also - the tax havens available to the rich - the off-shoring and outsourcing which causes millions of job losses. That is also corporate welfare.


If people are better off on welfare, than working for minimum wage, then companies would be forced to offer a wage high enough that matches what one could get through welfare, else people wont work and companies wont have a workforce, because people whom work are no longer entitled to welfare of any kind.

Now offshoring of work is a different matter. People elsewhere need work too and the topic merits a thread of its own.
edit on 12-5-2014 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Yes.

Because those people are working for the company they work for. Are they not entitled to be able to survive?? WITHOUT the government's (taxpayers') subsidies?





That is not the job of the company. The company is there to make a profit. Period.

If the owner(s) want to make it a great place to work, then they will make the decision to do such things like, offer higher pay, benefits and so on.

Survival is the responsibility of the person. No one else.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I would say remove it at the same time. The bandaid needs to come all the way off. Not just hang from one sticky side.

A flat tax would do this.

If people as a whole, had to pay their taxes out of pocket, instead of having their employer remove them, before ti gets to them, there would be a revolt unseen in this country.

Yes, it will hurt at first. But, it needs to be done. The math does not show it lasting for too much longer.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Merinda

I never said it would be pretty.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan


It wasn't a lie, you're the one ignorant of history. Until the end of the Civil War the US was reliant on slaves to make business economical. Eventually that was outlawed and industrialization took place.


The Civil War ended in 1865 You are skipping 70 years ..... As Augustus stated,the North was the truly Industrialized part of the country, where slavery was outlawed. The North industrialized well before the end of slavery and without slavery.

Spin it as you want, you are spouting lies. There was no Social Security, Welfare or Minimum Wage nationwide till the 1930's.

My statement stands.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Merinda

I never said it would be pretty.



Ok we remove 240 Billion of welfare from the economy, not just welfare for the people whom work, but for everyone. For arguments sake lets say that is not money which is left in the governments pockets, but money the government does not get to begin with through taxation and is therefore in the pockets of the consumer.

So 240 billion are in the pockets of the few in America whom earn enough to pay taxes, persons and artificial persons. If they have that much more, they might spend that money, but because its in less hands, they are likely to retain some of that money. Lets be generous and say they spend half of it, 120 billion, thats still 120 billion that is in savings accounts instead of changing hands in the economy.

What that means for your small business is that it will go belly up and so will thousands of others. So its back to the army for you if they will have you. Now the system wont work itself out over time either, Americas economy is linked to the global economy, so cost factors whose pricing are negligible from what is going on in America will adapt to the new reality in America only so much, those business models that do not find consumers, because they have to price their products or services at above what the market can offer, will cease to be viable.

And after all that pain what does America get in the end? Bankruptcies are up (your business included) unemployment is up. What is the payoff for all that pain?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I watched a great documentary last night, Inequality for All with Robert Reich.

The gap between wealthiest and middle class is continuing to grow. It is ridiculous how far the gap has grown in my lifetime. Reich interviewed several billionaires that agree that the tax rate is a joke in the US. Someone in the US making middle class wages pays over 30% in taxes, billionaires pay 15% or less.

Another important note I took is when adjusted for inflation, the average person is also paying almost 5 times more for health care.

The US is in dire need of an economical revolution. Because the wealth gap is so great, and now corporations are , allowed to contribute to those who make the laws, those who enforce the laws, and those who make judicial decisions. In other words the legislative, executive, and judicial are all in the pockets of lobbyists. The middle class can not afford lobbyists.

Today the Democratic-Republic the US once had is dead. We do not have choice in major elections, we get two per-selected candidates that gives the illusion of choice.

edit on 14-5-2014 by jrod because: 1



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
So many false assumptions, I don't no where to begin.




originally posted by: Merinda

Ok we remove 240 Billion of welfare from the economy, not just welfare for the people whom work, but for everyone. For arguments sake lets say that is not money which is left in the governments pockets, but money the government does not get to begin with through taxation and is therefore in the pockets of the consumer.

Fantastic. Sounds like a great start.


originally posted by: Merinda
So 240 billion are in the pockets of the few in America whom earn enough to pay taxes, persons and artificial persons.

But I thought even the poor pay taxes.

Or are we now allowing truth to show that most of the taxes are paid by the upper income?


originally posted by: Merinda

If they have that much more, they might spend that money,

Might and what-ifs are very fun to speculate.


originally posted by: Merinda
but because its in less hands, they are likely to retain some of that money. Lets be generous and say they spend half of it, 120 billion, thats still 120 billion that is in savings accounts instead of changing hands in the economy.

And that means that more people have THEIR money to decide on their own how to spend/invest it.


originally posted by: Merinda
What that means for your small business is that it will go belly up and so will thousands of others.

Another false assumption.
Now, why would my business go under? My clients are not welfare people. The product I offer is not purchased by most, and in fact, my clientele is primarily those within the middle-upper class to upper class.


originally posted by: Merinda
So its back to the army for you if they will have you.

Seeing as that I was never in the Army, and past the re-enlistment age, that would be very difficult to accomplish. But, continue to assume some more.



originally posted by: Merinda
Now the system wont work itself out over time either, Americas economy is linked to the global economy, so cost factors whose pricing are negligible from what is going on in America will adapt to the new reality in America only so much, those business models that do not find consumers, because they have to price their products or services at above what the market can offer, will cease to be viable.

So a Tim Geitner / Progressive approach, how interesting.


originally posted by: Merinda
And after all that pain what does America get in the end? Bankruptcies are up (your business included) unemployment is up. What is the payoff for all that pain?

And again, why would my business go under??
And with someone like me, who would have more money left in my pocket, I am sure it would be used to purchase items, hire more people and so on.

So........



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
The Civil War ended in 1865 You are skipping 70 years ..... As Augustus stated,the North was the truly Industrialized part of the country, where slavery was outlawed. The North industrialized well before the end of slavery and without slavery.

Spin it as you want, you are spouting lies. There was no Social Security, Welfare or Minimum Wage nationwide till the 1930's.

My statement stands.


Slavery was still essentially in effect after the Civil War it just changed in name and was instead seen in the form of things like corporate towns. Even after the war most slaves stayed on the plantations they had worked on prior.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
So many false assumptions, I don't no where to begin.




originally posted by: Merinda

Ok we remove 240 Billion of welfare from the economy, not just welfare for the people whom work, but for everyone. For arguments sake lets say that is not money which is left in the governments pockets, but money the government does not get to begin with through taxation and is therefore in the pockets of the consumer.

Fantastic. Sounds like a great start.


originally posted by: Merinda
So 240 billion are in the pockets of the few in America whom earn enough to pay taxes, persons and artificial persons.

But I thought even the poor pay taxes.

Or are we now allowing truth to show that most of the taxes are paid by the upper income?


originally posted by: Merinda

If they have that much more, they might spend that money,

Might and what-ifs are very fun to speculate.


originally posted by: Merinda
but because its in less hands, they are likely to retain some of that money. Lets be generous and say they spend half of it, 120 billion, thats still 120 billion that is in savings accounts instead of changing hands in the economy.

And that means that more people have THEIR money to decide on their own how to spend/invest it.


originally posted by: Merinda
What that means for your small business is that it will go belly up and so will thousands of others.

Another false assumption.
Now, why would my business go under? My clients are not welfare people. The product I offer is not purchased by most, and in fact, my clientele is primarily those within the middle-upper class to upper class.


originally posted by: Merinda
So its back to the army for you if they will have you.

Seeing as that I was never in the Army, and past the re-enlistment age, that would be very difficult to accomplish. But, continue to assume some more.



originally posted by: Merinda
Now the system wont work itself out over time either, Americas economy is linked to the global economy, so cost factors whose pricing are negligible from what is going on in America will adapt to the new reality in America only so much, those business models that do not find consumers, because they have to price their products or services at above what the market can offer, will cease to be viable.

So a Tim Geitner / Progressive approach, how interesting.


originally posted by: Merinda
And after all that pain what does America get in the end? Bankruptcies are up (your business included) unemployment is up. What is the payoff for all that pain?

And again, why would my business go under??
And with someone like me, who would have more money left in my pocket, I am sure it would be used to purchase items, hire more people and so on.

So........


Where did I say the poor pay taxes? In America I think only half the population pays taxes. Nowhere did I say the poor pay taxes. In fact, the more people can not afford to live on their salary, the more of your taxdollars goes towards closing that gap.

You only sell high ticket items to consumers whom can afford them and therefore do not need people further down the totem pole? Thats like saying the Lion does not need grass, because he eats Gazelle. The more money is in less hands, the more money is hoarded, thats a fact. Therefore the assumption that out of those 240 Billion that are removed from peoples hands, only about half is spent or invested in the economy directly rather than on the stock/commodity market, is apt.

Sorry, I made the assumption that like my avatar yours was related to your rl persona as well.

Finally we do meet half way. I assume it did not escape your attention that I am in favor for eliminating welfare for people whom hold down a job. Only people whom do not work at all should receive welfare.

Of course for you it would mean that what you offer a person for their work must be a better deal than welfare, else their quality of life would decrease by taking your job offer and not being eligible for welfare anymore, at least until through pay increases, be they warranted because of experience, promotion, performance or any combination of the three, they rake in a salary that allows them to sustain a lifestyle equal to those on welfare, or even exceed it.
edit on 14-5-2014 by Merinda because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Merinda

Where did I say the poor pay taxes? In America I think only half the population pays taxes. Nowhere did I say the poor pay taxes. In fact, the more people can not afford to live on their salary, the more of your taxdollars goes towards closing that gap.

It is an assumed stance, from people that argue for welfare, any part of it, to continue.
I am wrong in assuming you are of the stance that the poor pay taxes. Sorry about that.


originally posted by: Merinda
You only sell high ticket items to consumers whom can afford them and therefore do not need people further down the totem pole? Thats like saying the Lion does not need grass, because he eats Gazelle. The more money is in less hands, the more money is hoarded, thats a fact. Therefore the assumption that out of those 240 Billion that are removed from peoples hands, only about half is spent or invested in the economy directly rather than on the stock/commodity market, is apt.

I understand the whole butterfly affect.
If those people that purchase my items had more money in their pocket from less taxation, they would purchase more or higher end goods that I sell. When I sell more, I spend more also. I increase my workload, require more raw product and more services of others.
This flows down in every manner.


originally posted by: Merinda
Sorry, I made the assumption that like my avatar yours was related to your rl persona as well.

No worries. I do it to.


originally posted by: Merinda
Finally we do meet half way. I assume it did not escape your attention that I am in favor for eliminating welfare for people whom hold down a job. Only people whom do not work at all should receive welfare.

I say eliminate for all, people and companies. It should be there for a small percentage, for a short time.


originally posted by: Merinda
Of course for you it would mean that what you offer a person for their work must be a better deal than welfare, else their quality of life would decrease by taking your job offer and not being eligible for welfare anymore, at least until through pay increases, be they warranted because of experience, promotion, performance or any combination of the three, they rake in a salary that allows them to sustain a lifestyle equal to those on welfare, or even exceed it.


If I had less taxes to pay, I would look to hirer people that are more talented then those of the pool I search from now.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Pay us to make more money


Oracle wants $1.2 million to bring jobs to San Antonio
Updated: Tuesday, May 13 2014, 01:40 PM CDT

BEXAR COUNTY, Texas - County commissioners approved the first step of a plan Tuesday that could bring the software giant Oracle to San Antonio. Oracle wants to bring 200 jobs to the Alamo City over the next two years. The corporation plans to open a new operations center in the area.

However, Oracle is hoping for a $1 million grant from city leaders. It's also banking on a $200,000 grant from Bexar County. County commissioners voted Tuesday to begin staff negotiations regarding that grant. Final approval of the grant application could come in June.




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Interesting recent thoughts posted here.

Regarding who 'pays taxes' and who does not: religious organizations and non-profit organizations do not. The employees of nonprofits, however, DO pay taxes. People who have wealth overseas or loophole schemes in place do not.
The only 'taxes' the poor don't pay are INCOME taxes. They STILL pay sales tax, extra taxes on commodities they buy like gas, they pay taxes built into their utility bills and/or rent, and if they own property, they pay property taxes which pay for local infrastructure, schools, etc. Don't ever say that ANYONE pays NO TAXES. Even illegal immigrants pay taxes.

Now, if I owned a 5-milllion dollar estate, I would expect my taxes to be much, much higher than they are with my home which is now devalued from nearly $100k five years ago to 55k. Yet I still pay on it's 'county assessor valuation' of 78k.

We are taxed when we EARN it (income, not capital gains), and taxed again when we SPEND it.
Today in my city, which straddles a state line, the people on the east side who work for fast food were striking, demanding $15/hour. The McDonalds franchises on the west side (where I live) went to work as per usual. Why? I don't know. Maybe it's back to that 'local market will bear' thing. There is much more poverty on the eastern side of the line, the school system is a disaster, the crime is appalling, and the infrastructure is deteriorating.


edit on 5/15/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 21  22  23    25 >>

log in

join