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.

 

Is using government force to take from one to give to another the moral high ground?

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
My money is geing taken from me, year after year to pay for government intrusions in Chad, Egypt, Iraq, Niger, etc, etc...is this moral?




posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

The poor are already 'donating' most of their time to labour with 3 or 4 jobs that pay peanuts. While the wealthy eat their caviar in their jacuzzis.


Most people I know that are owners of businesses work more hours than their employees. I do not understand your point here to assume the extremely small number of wealthy people who might not work are in anyway meaningful to this discussion.



The minimum wage should be over 21$ the wealthy have basically cheated everyone off of fair compensation.



Why?



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You might be right, I was thinking of informal logic and used mathematical symbols to illustrate. I did not mean mathematical logic but why focus on that when what I was actually talking about is expressed in words in the line below that?


These people thinking they own part of what everyone else earns need to take their paws off it.

'don't touch my money but...


I believe a progressive tax is more fair

do it through a progressive tax'

I honestly don't understand why this has given you such a hard time.
edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Of course I'm right. Math is my primary language.

As to your confusion: I accept taxation as a necessary evil, as long as such taxation is in some way fairly applied (as in a progressive tax to compensate for the relative ease of producing income at higher wealth levels). However, the acceptance of a need to provide a small percentage of my income to the government does not carry with it an acceptance that such tax rates may be arbitrarily applied because someone thinks I should owe more.

In other words, what's mine is mine. Any required donation I make is done when I make it. I owe no more, and certainly do own what is left. No one has any right to it but me.

In math, paws ->0. The amount I contribute should approach, but never equal 0.

But, I will assume you are still confused...

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not talking math, I used mathematical notation to say something, not the same thing, so you were wrong there no matter how good you are at math.

I don't need you to explain it again because I understood the first time. I just pointed out a contradiction and instead of just looking at it and saying "yeah maybe that sounds odd" you chose to take the scenic route and you are still going.

Looking at it again, nobodies paws are on it. You can call it a donation if you like but it isn't. You hand it over under fear of prosecution no matter what the applied rate is or who comes up with it, even if that was 100%.
edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I'm not talking math, I used mathematical notation to say something, not the same thing,

"I'm not speaking English. I'm just using English words, which is not the same thing."

Right.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I thought it was pretty simple but you don't seem to grasp it?

ETA: I was writing in english and threw in a couple of math symbols, just in case the difference wasn't clear enough for you.

You are using the latin alphabet but that doesn't mean that you are writing in latin.

Me: Hey you know some things are just true like 2+2=4.

You: Yeah but ->4.

Me: O.o


edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I understand you have no earthly idea what you are talking about.

ETA: But, this little exchange has drifted far off topic. You seem to be unable (or unwilling) to accept your own lack of comprehension and end it, so allow me. I'm done. Redneck out.

TheRedneck

edit on 12/27/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, you are wrong.

I'm telling you what is plain to see in the previous posts. I mixed a couple of math symbols into plain text. Seems like your brain switches automatically, being a math wiz and all that.

ETA: You are the one who kept trying to explain something that didn't need explaining because you think someone else has a lack of comprehension.
edit on 27-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero



Do you pay a kid mowing your lawn 20 bucks because you feel that is a good price for the service he performed or do you pay 500 Bucks because you can? The vast majority of jobs have a range of worth wouldn't you say? When you accept a job you are accepting the pay for that job, and if your skills only get you crappy jobs that pay little then maybe you need to get new skills. The lowest person on my team still makes 80k and a big company like Boeing pays extremely well too, so what type companies are you talking about?


What's the baseline though? When you've got people working full time who can't afford to pay their rent, utility bills, buy food and clothing while the shareholders rake in the ££££££s you have to ask yourself if those workers are being fairly remunerated for their input?

What if a person can't get new skills? Is it OK then to take advantage of them in this way?

Conversely, what if *everyone* got new skills? Those "crappy" jobs would still exist and need to be filled by somebody right?



Well they do in sales tax don't they? Who gains the most from Government services, I can't think of any that I used, and I make too much to even get Child Tax Credit. Please give me examples of services these rich people get over poor to suggest they need to pay more.


Sales tax is a consumer tax paid by the buyer. You've never once used roads or transport? Police? Education? Benefited from state funded medical research?

Owners of large companies benefit financially at a far higher rate than the average Joe from taxpayer funded education and healthcare via their workforce and though use of taxpayer funded infrastructure.



posted on Dec, 27 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko


No company can force you to buy their product.

Insurance companies from Obamacare until the other day. Just sayin'.

TheRedneck


The sort of stopped being private companies in the usual sense with Obamacare, but then again, even though the left doesn't want to admit it, Obamacare is a good example of actual fascism, too.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: neo96

You neglected to mention industry collectively comparing hourly compensation and then setting the wages universally.


That is not what happens. You might try an ordinary college class on economics and business to help you understand. It is far better to have various companies competing for customers by providing the best products at the best price than to have a government which CENTRALLY sets and dictates the prices of things, whether it be price controls or like the central control of a communist government which owns the means of production in all the businesses. www.cato.org...



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
That is not what happens.

He was talking about monopolies and they do happen.

AT&T is a recent example. It was only 36 years ago. As soon as the government loosened restrictions they started to merge and buy each other out again.



posted on Dec, 28 2017 @ 11:47 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

I don't even know why they call themselves liberals because the real liberals were the ones that fought the Monarch over taxation without representation.

I think in the 1920s the European socialists with the Rise of Commnusism and Fascism populism was able to influence the American Democrat party and cloak themselves under the flag of liberalism. Then they completely rewrote what liberalism represent, which now just look like socialism instead of liberalism.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
That is not what happens.

He was talking about monopolies and they do happen.

AT&T is a recent example. It was only 36 years ago. As soon as the government loosened restrictions they started to merge and buy each other out again.

I understand about monopolies, but the poster did not specify that and companies do not "universally" control price.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

You said that "is not what happens" as if it never has, which is wrong.
edit on 29-12-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Xenogears

The poor are already 'donating' most of their time to labour with 3 or 4 jobs that pay peanuts. While the wealthy eat their caviar in their jacuzzis.


Most people I know that are owners of businesses work more hours than their employees. I do not understand your point here to assume the extremely small number of wealthy people who might not work are in anyway meaningful to this discussion.



The minimum wage should be over 21$ the wealthy have basically cheated everyone off of fair compensation.



Why?


The wealthy owners often work extra out of their own volition or passion. Still may exceed a worker on their first job but on their total 2 to 3 jobs? The labour of the poor is often hard physical labour while the boss merely works his brain.

As for minimum wage it was $21 once inflation adjusted. People deserve a living wage. Your employee cant be required to have 2 to 3 jobs and welfare to make ends meet.



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: toysforadults

What about using unions and collectively bargaining? Is this moral?

What about corporations comparing their pay with each other with in a specific area/region and all of them setting the pay rate accordingly? Is that moral?
.


Do you know when it stops being moral? When the union blocks people from working unless they belong to it, it becomes immoral. If a union really is a good thing, then it shouldn't have to force workers to belong. Right?

Why should non-members get a free ride on the wages and benefit negotiated by members?



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Why should poor people get a free ride on the backs of those who were successful?

Amazing how you can argue both sides depending on how it affects you.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 29 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
Why should poor people get a free ride on the backs of those who were successful?
Amazing how you can argue both sides depending on how it affects you.
TheRedneck

Here's the deal with unions...no company gets one unless it deserves one. Happy workers do not feel the need to organise. And never forget...a collective agreement is signed by both parties. Most union action takes place when management breaks the rules it agreed upon.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join