Hillary says she will help struggling Americans. Why Should We Believe that she would?

[kallipolis]

That might be true with socialized medicine with the government regulating fees, resulting in the unfairness you describe. But in the US, doctors tend to have very good incomes and have the freedom to change their practices and locations. It would be unfair if the government did not allow tne football player to make the most of his rare talent. No one forces people to buy tickets.

No one here is suggesting that the government not allow an entertainer to make very good money.

All that has been said here is that the market is very unfair.

 

[Benvolio]

No one here is suggesting that the government not allow an entertainer to make very good money.

All that has been said here is that the market is very unfair.

No. Socialism is unfair in preventing individuals from recieving superior benefts for superior talents, harder talents and innovation. In the pursuit of equality and "fairness" it supresses incentives and the full exercise of superior talents and innovation.

 

[Hankerin1075]

Letting the market decide is the only fair way to do it. We all decide where our money goes.

 

[kallipolis]

No. Socialism is unfair in preventing individuals from recieving superior benefts for superior talents, harder talents and innovation. In the pursuit of equality and "fairness" it supresses incentives and the full exercise of superior talents and innovation.

You are confusing Communism, with socialism.

A Social democracy allows the free market to work, with some regulation to ensure that the employee is not abused by unsavoury employers. Were it not for government regulations there would be no health, and safety regulations, or pension plans to take care of people when they retire.

 

[Benvolio]

You are confusing Communism, with socialism.

A Social democracy allows the free market to work, with some regulation to ensure that the employee is not abused by unsavoury employers. Were it not for government regulations there would be no health, and safety regulations, or pension plans to take care of people when they retire.

Remember, income taxes are used to confiscate from those deemed to to have too much. And single payer, ie socialized, health systems regulate doctors incomes.
No one argues for no regulation, but governments always go too far.

 

[jbrown329]

jbrown him and Kabluey haven't a single clue about the American economy. i think the media must be getting the best of them.

Uh, I was born in the USA and have lived in the USA my entire life. Supply side does NOT work DEMAND is what works.

And most economists (even some conservative ones) say that raising wages will stimulate the economy, not kill it.

 

[jbrown329]

That's almost double the minimum. If you want more money, make yourself worth more money. I can't live very well on those wages so I make myself worth more than that to my employer. That's how it works.

No, the CEO MUST make multiple millions a year. So they pay the workers a pittance. The Walton clan is worth BILLIONS and pay slave wages.

If the minimum wage had kept up with everything else, it would now be close to $20hr instead of $7.50hr. Profits over workers.

 

[Benvolio]

Uh, I was born in the USA and have lived in the USA my entire life. Supply side does NOT work DEMAND is what works.

And most economists (even some conservative ones) say that raising wages will stimulate the economy, not kill it.

Mandatory raising of wages stimulates spending by the few who get minimum wages, but it stimulates price rises and inflation for every one. It hits the unemployed, the poor and those on fixed incomes hardest of all. Some minimum wages jobs are eliminated and some marginal businesses close. In the balance minimum wage raise may get votes but the economic effect is, in the balance, negative.
If the minimum wage were $20 an hour, could the unemployed afford to eat? The retired? Immigrants? Could fast food places stay open? How many more jobs would have to be sent overseas?

 

[jbrown329]

Wealthy people are the enemy? The wealthy pay your salary and mine. The idiots in charge are wealthy, but that doesn't mean that being wealthy is a bad thing. Wealth has no inherent evil associated with it. I'd like to have a little money someday. When I do, I damn sure don't expect to be ridiculed or hated because of all my hard work.

The middle class drive the economy. They spend more on everyday things which helps others. The rich buy yachts, how many people does that employ?

 

[luckynumbah7]

Mandatory raising of wages stimulates spending by the few who get minimum wages

The few who get minimum wage....?

http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/min...racteristics-of-minimum-wage-workers-2014.pdf

This is one of those 'They're a minority cuz I say they are' things, innit.

 

[jbrown329]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that jobs like those should pay less than more specialized/difficult jobs.

Then never go to a grocery store. Don't stop at a convenience store. Never stop for fast food. Never go to a restaurant. Because they couldn't function without those low wage workers.

In 1985, I could exist on minimum wage. Not possible today. Rent has gone up a minimum of 600%. Food/utility costs have went up exponentially. Minimum wage has only doubled.

 

[jbrown329]

It is not unfair. The player provides a service for millions of individuals and collects a small amount from each. The physician serves one at a time, but in the US is well paid for it. Both are rewarded by the market in proportion to the scarcity of their talent. Supply and demand. While liberals would like to be the dictators according to their biases and need for votes, in the end the market is the fairest system.

A ARNP makes 70-100K a year. They provide more service than an ambulance chaser attorney who makes far more.

 

[jbrown329]

That might be true with socialized medicine with the government regulating fees, resulting in the unfairness you describe. But in the US, doctors tend to have very good incomes and have the freedom to change their practices and locations. It would be unfair if the government did not allow tne football player to make the most of his rare talent. No one forces people to buy tickets.

So a pro ball player should make millions for providing no service while a fireman should make little money for providing a shitload of service.

 

[Benvolio]

No, the CEO MUST make multiple millions a year. So they pay the workers a pittance. The Walton clan is worth BILLIONS and pay slave wages.

If the minimum wage had kept up with everything else, it would now be close to $20hr instead of $7.50hr. Profits over workers.

Remember, Wal Mart is successful because its prices are lower. If it paid more, its prices would be higher and those jobs might not even exist. The employees benefit by the low prices on groceries, etc, as well, so their wages are better than they might seem. Everyone benefits by the low prices.
The employees take those jobs, as better than the alternatives available to them.

 

[Benvolio]

R

So a pro ball player should make millions for providing no service while a fireman should make little money for providing a shitload of service.

If the player has a talent why should he not get the benefit? If the fireman could he would. In the end, your analysis does not work. Why should a ball player make make more than a waitress? Why should Oprah be worth more than jbrown? Why should a union member make more than a non member? Why should not the government make sure that everyone gets the same; no one more than any one else. Equal is fair, huh? Anyone why tries to make more should be sent to the gulag, huh?

 

[TX-Beau]

Remember, Wal Mart is successful because its prices are lower. If it paid more, its prices would be higher and those jobs might not even exist. The employees benefit by the low prices on groceries, etc, as well, so their wages are better than they might seem. Everyone benefits by the low prices.
The employees take those jobs, as better than the alternatives available to them.

It's prices are lower because it gets it's labor in China, because it runs U.S. competitors out of business, and forces it's U.S. employees onto GOVERNMENT WELFARE in order to survive!

REGARD, one and all, SEE the HYPOCRITE! 5 cents a peep!!

 

[TX-Beau]

It's prices are lower because it gets it's labor in China, because it runs U.S. competitors out of business, and forces it's U.S. employees onto GOVERNMENT WELFARE in order to survive!

REGARD, one and all, SEE the HYPOCRITE! 5 cents a peep!!

I remember going into a Wal-Mart a few years ago where they were soliciting donations of food at Thanksgiving so their EMPLOYEES could have a decent meal.

 

[kallipolis]

Remember, income taxes are used to confiscate from those deemed to to have too much. And single payer, ie socialized, health systems regulate doctors incomes.
No one argues for no regulation, but governments always go too far.

Most higher earners utilise tax avoidance schemes drawn up by their accountants, to avoid paying taxes.

I draw your attention to Apple Inc. that has managed to land itself with a 13 Billion Euro tax bill imposed by the European Union, the result of Apple Inc, filing its EU wide profits in Ireland at an attractively low rate, through an agreement with the Irish Government.

 

[Benvolio]

Most higher earners utilise tax avoidance schemes drawn up by their accountants, to avoid paying taxes.

I draw your attention to Apple Inc. that has managed to land itself with a 13 Billion Euro tax bill imposed by the European Union, the result of Apple Inc, filing its EU wide profits in Ireland at an attractively low rate, through an agreement with the Irish Government.

You have not shown that Apple did anything illegal. The EU wants to confiscate as much as possible; Apple wants to pay as little as possible. Maybe the EU will not last long enough to collect.

 

[kallipolis]

You have not shown that Apple did anything illegal. The EU wants to confiscate as much as possible; Apple wants to pay as little as possible. Maybe the EU will not last long enough to collect.

In Ireland the matter is not illegal, for the Irish Government knowingly entered into an agreement with Apple Inc. to ensure that this corporation avoided its taxation responsibilities in those EU countries where they sold their products. Ireland also knowingly transgressed EU conventions by entering into this tax avoidance contract with Apple Inc.

Apple Inc. has hundreds of billions parked off shore in tax havens, thereby avoiding its taxation responsibilities.