Screw Income Equality

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

Im going to be a poop smith !

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: rickymouse
I owned a construction company. As workers became more experienced I boosted their wages. Some new guy who is a nice guy and trainable might take a while before you started making money off of him/her until they learned how to do things correctly. I had many times we had to redo things that a new guy worked on. And then you hire someone who says they know how to do something and they screw it up. So raising a person's wage when they gain experience on your crew is essential. If you don't, they go to work for someone that will pay more.

I trained a lot of people to work in my life.

Another thing is a guy working in a nice warm office should not get as much as people working out in the hot sun, the freezing cold, and in the rain and snow. Office workers should not get paid as much as a guy working on a roof or high building or lifting heavy things where risk is higher. The society we are in has pay not relative to work preformed. Work that is hard on the body should pay more. Everyone would want to work at McDs if the pay was equal, there would not be any construction workers.

Couldn't disagree more with your last paragraph.

I work in an office.. Tell me what someone who just works outside in weather like you listed does to make more than I what I have earned the right to make in my career?

Oh wait, is this one of those "manual labor" is more noble then other types of work BS?

Construction workers used to make more than people working in an office or working in a store. But it seems like in the last fifteen years the tide has turned and people doing jobs that are not really needed for survival of our people are making more than those who actually make our society more secure. I know someone selling phone packages that make more than a grocery store manager. I know people who are working for AT&T selling cell phone packages who make more than the people repairing the phone lines for the same company. Those who can trick people into buying things they do not really need make more than those who actually provide necessary services for society.

Great we can just agree to disagree then.

My whole career has been an "office job" same with all my friends. Their is 0 that the type of person you are talking about has done to deserve more than I do in my chosen field.

Sorry I just don't believe in this thought that if you work with your hands you are better or somehow more noble. You want to, great but the good thing is in the real world, that thought process has little to no impact on anything.

Again agree to disagree because nothing you say is changing my mind and nothing as say is changing yours.

It comes down to how long you can do the job. You do not see 65 year old ditch diggers. They wore themselves out long before that. Physical labor means shorter working careers, so they need to be paid to compensate for that.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

and in the UK since they have increased the pension age up to 75

we wont even collect our pensions for working manual labour jobs as we will likely die before collection

I just dont get the whole depopulation gig , when we are a valuable resource in the economy

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: rickymouse
I owned a construction company. As workers became more experienced I boosted their wages. Some new guy who is a nice guy and trainable might take a while before you started making money off of him/her until they learned how to do things correctly. I had many times we had to redo things that a new guy worked on. And then you hire someone who says they know how to do something and they screw it up. So raising a person's wage when they gain experience on your crew is essential. If you don't, they go to work for someone that will pay more.

I trained a lot of people to work in my life.

Another thing is a guy working in a nice warm office should not get as much as people working out in the hot sun, the freezing cold, and in the rain and snow. Office workers should not get paid as much as a guy working on a roof or high building or lifting heavy things where risk is higher. The society we are in has pay not relative to work preformed. Work that is hard on the body should pay more. Everyone would want to work at McDs if the pay was equal, there would not be any construction workers.

Couldn't disagree more with your last paragraph.

I work in an office.. Tell me what someone who just works outside in weather like you listed does to make more than I what I have earned the right to make in my career?

Oh wait, is this one of those "manual labor" is more noble then other types of work BS?

Construction workers used to make more than people working in an office or working in a store. But it seems like in the last fifteen years the tide has turned and people doing jobs that are not really needed for survival of our people are making more than those who actually make our society more secure. I know someone selling phone packages that make more than a grocery store manager. I know people who are working for AT&T selling cell phone packages who make more than the people repairing the phone lines for the same company. Those who can trick people into buying things they do not really need make more than those who actually provide necessary services for society.

Great we can just agree to disagree then.

My whole career has been an "office job" same with all my friends. Their is 0 that the type of person you are talking about has done to deserve more than I do in my chosen field.

Sorry I just don't believe in this thought that if you work with your hands you are better or somehow more noble. You want to, great but the good thing is in the real world, that thought process has little to no impact on anything.

Again agree to disagree because nothing you say is changing my mind and nothing as say is changing yours.

It comes down to how long you can do the job. You do not see 65 year old ditch diggers. They wore themselves out long before that. Physical labor means shorter working careers, so they need to be paid to compensate for that.

Great like I said, nothing you or anyone else is going to say is going to by default make me think that someone doing manual labor deserves more then someone in an office.

a reply to: Edumakated

Yea, I get that; but the very fact that someone has a billion dollars is an example of waste. If taxes were really progressive, that billion would be taxed and the revenues could be invested in some other activity like job training that would recycle that billion back into the economy.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Edumakated

Yea, I get that; but the very fact that someone has a billion dollars is an example of waste. If taxes were really progressive, that billion would be taxed and the revenues could be invested in some other activity like job training that would recycle that billion back into the economy.

How is it an example of waste?

You seem to be confusing income, cash on hand, and net worth. They are all very different.

Income: This is what you make in any given year. You can make $1 million and still have a NEGATIVE net worth due to debts and over spending. On the other hand, you can make very little but still be worth millions.

Cash on Hand: This is how liquid you are. The money you have access to. Think your checking account or other immediately accessible assets. Owning a house outright might give you a net worth of $1 million but you are not liquid as you cannot easily sell that home. On the other hand, if you have $100k in the bank, you may be in a better position than someone who technically has a higher net worth.

Net Worth: Most of these uber rich have their assets tied up in their companies. It does not mean they have that much money as CASH ON HAND. In other words, their equity /share of ownership is what makes them rich. However, they cannot sell all their shares because doing so would hurt the value of their investments. Bill Gates cannot sell $100 billion of his Microsoft shares without destroying the stock value.

Taxes and giving money to the government is the most inefficient way to reinvest money.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Edumakated

Yea, I get that; but the very fact that someone has a billion dollars is an example of waste. If taxes were really progressive, that billion would be taxed and the revenues could be invested in some other activity like job training that would recycle that billion back into the economy.

You can't effectively tax wealth because wealth is fluid. You also cannot tax something that has not yet been realized.

For example, let's say you own a farm and that farm has a fair market value of $20 million if you sold it. Technically, you are worth $20 million but you'd have to sell the farm to realize it. Super progressive politician comes along and says we need to tax the rich! Because your farm is worth $20 million, they want to tax you 10%. So now you owe $2 million in taxes.

Where do you get the $2 million dollars from? Is government going to force you to sell your $20 million farm to pay $2 million in taxes? The farm may only generate say $1 million a year in income. You can't afford the wealth tax because you are not liquid.

Secondly, what sense does it make to sell an asset to pay taxes on an asset? Eventually, the assets would be drawn down and the government would get nothing.

Screw Income Equality

There has always been a difference between skilled and unskilled labor.

It's a simple fact of life some people make more than others.

So what do you do about it ?

1. Manage YOUR money better.
2. INVEST ( yes that dirty six letter word).
3. Get the hell over it.

before we can have income equality we have to be the same, same size, same color, same intellect.

so until the entire human race is a cloned copy of each other there will be no equality


isn't it funny how nature insures there is no equality..........

a reply to: neo96

Sure fine I can accept that for all things ultimately except health care.

a reply to: Edumakated

Well, to clarify, I would obviously be talking about income. But what I am talking about is economic activity. Tax laws should be structured to encourage excess income and cash on hand be reinvested into the economy to generate more economic activity, create more jobs and to increase incomes for workers so they can spend and generate more economic activity. There is much more to tax policy than simply raising revenues to the corrupt government entities and politicians.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Edumakated

Well, to clarify, I would obviously be talking about income. But what I am talking about is economic activity. Tax laws should be structured to encourage excess income and cash on hand be reinvested into the economy to generate more economic activity, create more jobs and to increase incomes for workers so they can spend and generate more economic activity. There is much more to tax policy than simply raising revenues to the corrupt government entities and politicians.

Our tax policy already does that.... that is why capital gains tax rates are lower than wage earner tax rates. If you want to encourage even more investment, you need to lower the cap gains rate even further.

Again, wealthy people have their money invested. No rich person is sitting on piles of cash. That money is invested in the capital markets, VC and PE funds, etc. In short, it is invested in other companies seeking capital doing exactly what you say you want. Creating economic activity, jobs, etc.

We wouldn't be having these debates if we could get more people educated on economics and finance.

a reply to: Archivalist

en.wikipedia.org...

The Pareto principle (also known as the 80/20 rule, the law of the vital few, or the principle of factor sparsity)[1][2] states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.[3] Management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who noted the 80/20 connection while at the University of Lausanne in 1896, as published in his first work, Cours d'économie politique. In it, Pareto showed that approximately 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. It is an axiom of business management that "80% of sales come from 20% of clients".[4] Mathematically, the 80/20 rule is roughly followed by a power law distribution (also known as a Pareto distribution) for a particular set of parameters, and many natural phenomena have been shown empirically to exhibit such a distribution.[5] The Pareto principle is only tangentially related to Pareto efficiency. Pareto developed both concepts in the context of the distribution of income and wealth among the population.

eh according to this that's just about standard for most economies /owning land in ye old times . i will probally get the saying wrong but i think it goes like this

"dont worry about whats on some one else's plate as long as you got enough on yours" just in my own example im not like destitute but am far from being at risk of homelessness or whatnot , i have most of what i need and even the bulk of what i want (still want a tank lol) and im moderately content with this life i have.for me at least surpluses of money have caused me more problems then solutions but i would not want to speak for others on the matter just my own personal experiences

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

a tank you say??

ther is a group online that owns these, personally, I'm not much of a 4 wheeler

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Edumakated

Well, to clarify, I would obviously be talking about income. But what I am talking about is economic activity. Tax laws should be structured to encourage excess income and cash on hand be reinvested into the economy to generate more economic activity, create more jobs and to increase incomes for workers so they can spend and generate more economic activity. There is much more to tax policy than simply raising revenues to the corrupt government entities and politicians.

I have a client who works for a major hedge fund. He is worth about $10 million. Do you know how much cash he has on hand? His checking account literally had about $50k in it. That's it. His other liquid assets were in stocks and bonds.

He is fully invested in the market which means that money is being reinvested back into the economy as loans and capital used by companies to grow and expand. That is what the stock market enables. Companies go public and offer stocks to the public to raise money so they can grow, expand, and create jobs.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

www.millionairebefore50.com... good deal of immigrants have risen to the top so not all are "low skilled" or low motivated workers dont know how to copy the charts but it covers the richest 33 or so

a reply to: Puppylove

if capitalisim is so evil and leads only to the bottom how would you explain chinas exploding middle class? there are now more rich/well off chinese people then Americans and they use at least a variant of capitalism chinapower.csis.org...

Over the past several decades, China’s economic development has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty and resulted in a burgeoning middle class. Middle class households typically have enough income to satisfy their primary needs – food, clothing, and shelter – with some disposable income left over for additional consumption and savings. In 2002, China’s middle class was only four percent of its population. A decade later, this number had climbed to 31 percent, constituting over 420 million people. China’s growing middle class presents an array of new economic opportunities, but also poses significant political and demographic challenges.

seems to have worked for those 420 million Chinese who went from a mostly low tech substance life style to well what Americans would call middle class

originally posted by: RalagaNarHallas
a reply to: Puppylove

if capitalisim is so evil and leads only to the bottom how would you explain chinas exploding middle class? there are now more rich/well off chinese people then Americans and they use at least a variant of capitalism chinapower.csis.org...

Over the past several decades, China’s economic development has lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese out of poverty and resulted in a burgeoning middle class. Middle class households typically have enough income to satisfy their primary needs – food, clothing, and shelter – with some disposable income left over for additional consumption and savings. In 2002, China’s middle class was only four percent of its population. A decade later, this number had climbed to 31 percent, constituting over 420 million people. China’s growing middle class presents an array of new economic opportunities, but also poses significant political and demographic challenges.

seems to have worked for those 420 million Chinese who went from a mostly low tech substance life style to well what Americans would call middle class

While capitalism isn't perfect, it has most certainly taken more people out of poverty than any other system.

a reply to: thedigirati

yep the closest i got was i almost bought a DWK one of those amphibious transports from ww2 but it needed an entire new engine and that was waaaay out of my price point . figured it would be fun to play in the snow with and explore all the lakes here (montana) but ive always liked obscure ridiculous vehicles despite their impracticality

a reply to: Edumakated

you may be more able to answer this then me as economics aren't my forte what are the major differences between what china has done for example vs what america did post ww2 (when our middle class prospered)

and how does their variant of capitalism compare to ours?