Hmmmm...

.

@Darkriff, I lean towards a higher tax rate for the rich but again it won't work. They will find loopholes, layoff employees, increase prices and find every way they can keep their piece of the pie. Flat tax and no tax breaks. If I make $100,000 and I pay a %25 flat tax, I pay $25,000 in taxes. If my boss makes $1,000,000 then he pays $250,000. No tax adjustments at the end of the year. Less waste and less government.

@JustJeff, I agree. It's simple supply and demand. people should be paid what they are worth. Owners however take as much as they want from their companies but when their profits go down they make adjustments to their overhead. Sure, they can take as much as they want from their own companies but should they?

Did not think this topic would have gotten so big and not shut down. Just felt the need to say that.

@Mac

I totally agree with the flat tax idea man.

@Mac

You're right.

But....



If we're applying this to athletes and such, then lets apply it to factory workers and such.

Without workers big wigs are nothing REMEMBER THAT.

(Also, I don't mean to yell when I capitalize, I just mean to emphasize those words).

Factory workers and such? You're kidding right? They are paid MORE than their worth. Supply and demand. The reality is that a person who has (will have) a PhD in computer engineering like Jeff has a skillset thatis both rare and sought after. A person who puts in bolts in a car for example has a skill that literally 99.5% of people possess and the supply is significantly greater than the demand. Factory workers are[/i[ being paid what they are worth. I am not saying that a person is worth more or less on a humanitarian level - I am saying people will have vastly different values in the workforce.

Guitarslinger124 says:

As far as taxes... The idea of a tax return is outrageous.

I don't agree with this at all. Tax returns exist because the government has taken out more of a person's check than they should have. I axctually do this on purpose. Many people think this is ignorant as I give the government an interest free loan essentially, but I could care less. The risk is if the government decides to not give returns, but that is the risk I willingly accept. I do this because we have a fair amount of debt from poor decisions I made about 10 years ago. I find that when we have a little extra money, we tend to not save every penny but end up spending it on something inevitably that we don't need. So it is set up such that we usually get about $6k as a return, since we overpay each month. Money is tight each month, but we basically have forced savings. I am aware that this is simply a lack of discipline on my part, but at least I see a flaw and find a way to fix it. We then take that return and immediately put about 90% of it on some form of debt. It has worked out great for us. If we eliminate the idea of a return, that is fine, but what it would do would simply make me adjust my withholdings such that I am always near a no-return zone if we did have returns. I would simply get that return I get annually, but instead of one lumpsum, I would get it spread out over 12 months.

Also, I read in there that the military lost a month's pay due to the inability of the government to settle on a budget. I am very sorry to hear this. It's a shame that you should suffer for the inability of others to do their jobs.

gshredder2112 says:

And finnaly,at all the people who are saying that the poor people need to take initiative,and get a job,and make money,and change there lives are hypocrites. They sit here and preach there idealistic views of america,how things should be,how everything is all wrong with the welfare and such,yet they do.nothing too try and change it,they just sit at home and complain,just like they claim the poor people do.

Come on man, people were debating and disagreeing, but doing it respectfully. I may not agree with some of the opinions of other members of this forum, but I see it as their opinion and respect that. We don't need to call people insulting names like a hypocrite. Please refrain from insults, this is a good, happy community!! :o)

@darkriff I have to agree with btimm on the factory workers, unskilled work isn't hard and to be honest most of it can be done by machines which highly skilled well paid engineers make and fix.

I know I keep saying in Britain/ the UK blah blah but that is really the only experience I have of this sort of topic so....

In Britain we have practically no unskilled factory workers, people need work like that they outsource it to China. Anyone who hires people to do that work in England is deemed a few cards short of a full deck, you really might as well burn money.

I dont think calling someoneone a hypocrite is insulting.Imo..
But anyway sorry.

Anyways..@darkriff+1
[quote=btimm They are paid MORE Than their worth

@dm I think factory workers was just an example.
Still need fast food workers.
still need luthiers.
still need roofers
and salesman.
My point is the unskilled make the world go round.
without them,Alot less progress would be made.
They should be paid well,because they work hard,no matter how
hard,or much skill it requires labor is the worlds most valuable asset.

In holland they have a fast food outlet (the name escapes me) where the food is loaded into locker like things one burger a locker, you put the money in it unlocks and you take the burger. They are also heated so you can keep them in and keep them hot for quite a while.

Also luthiers and roofers aren't unskilled and (in England) just cause it's manual doesn't mean unskilled, heck plumbers earn on average around £50,000 a year.

However spending all day watching a line of coke bottles whiz past you to check for imperfections isn't skilled is low paid and that's cause anyone can do it. And except for countries like India and China as far as I know those jobs practically don't exist any more.

Factory Workers was just an example.

Tell me if I'm wrong but what I'm getting out of this is.

"People that are less intelligent or less skilled are worthless to society"

I don't know about you but I believe that we're all equal. :/

I'm not saying that a laborer should be payed as much as a doctor, but I am saying that The Bigwig isn't gonna be doing any heavy lifting so obviously no matter how unintelligent The laborer is, he is of good value to the company; because without him, The company would fall apart.

Think about a cheerleader pyramid.
Who supports the whole pyramid? The cheerleaders on bottom. But everyone else notices those on top. But without the cheerleaders on the bottom those ones on top are NOTHING.

I was,speaking in America.

But they dont.

If you're not contributing to charity when you are poor, then you're not going to change just because you got rich. Statistically sad but true.

@tsb Thats because the poor are the charity. If they contribute
to other poor,they will be in total poverty.

@Gshred it was just an example on how you can remove unskilled labour such as serving people in fast food places easily.

@darkriff Businesses probably see them not as worthless but as expendable. Supply and demand there's a great supply but a low demand.

As people they are worth just as much but to a business they probably don't rank them as highly.

@DanielM Just because they can,doesnt mean they will.
Every fast food joint is manned daily by unskilled labourers.
Apparently the labourers have some thing to offer,the skill
of hard work,just because it doesnt require you too be a genius,or
have rare skills doesnt make the work easier,so they should be paid
accordingly to there value to the company,which is all.

No, you are wrong. It is simple supply and demand. The supply greatly exceeds the demand for such a simple job. If anyone can do the job, you will be paid as if anyone can do it. You don't spend years at the university crafting a skill to put a bolt in a panel, sorry.



Have you ever had fast food? Those employees don't do anything that resemble hard work whatsoever. They might be the laziest, most incompetent people employed. My order is wrong on average I would say 1/3 of the time.



You're wrong.

@Btimm They screw stuff up,yet you still need them.
If your not making your own hamburger,someone else
is and apparently theres a demand for it.With out tge
the small fry workers,there would be noone down there
collecting cash for there product,slaving over a hot grill
8hours a day,making sure everything is stocked and clean.

But Big corporations Dont want to pay "The foundation"
Even remotely well? Thats disgusting when you cant reward
your lifesblood even remotely well.

Yes gshredder2112, there is a demand for the small fry employees of major corporations. However, the supply is greater than the demand. It truly is just that simple.

@btimm Your making human workers,sound like trading cards.
I understand your point,But I think the small fry deserve
better,even if there unskilled,there working,helping the corporation
succeed,so why is it that they deserve minimum wage?they are just an
important part of the company as the ceo.

It doesn't matter who is more important to the company. At the end of the day, if your job is expendable to any able-bodied worker out there, your salary/wage will be much less than the jobs that require some sort of experience/education/skill.

Just like any square is a rectangle but not every rectangle is a square; Every CEO can be a grunt worker, but not every grunt worker can be a CEO.

That's the BOTTOM LINE. There is nothing else to it. For you to say that my job is just as important as the people that work in fast food is hugely misinformed.

Plus, I don't eat fast food.

WRONG

I'd like to see a CEO get off his ass and get out from behind his desk to move 60 lbs bags of cement all day. I really would. Because the majority of these CEOs would either 1. think they're too good for work like that OR 2. do not possess that amount of physical strength and stamina.

Just because they WON'T do it doesn't mean they can't do it. And to assume that any given CEO doesn't possess the physical strength and stamina to do grunt work has literally no merit behind it whatsoever.

@Jeff Think of it this way.
The workforce is a computer.The intelligent
skilled,schooled person is the hard drive.The
uskilled grunt worker is the solder(or pwr cable)
Now think,that hard drive is useless without those miniscule
pieces of solder(or pwr cable).Now if something were to go wrong with
the solder(or pwr cable)It could be easily replaced for a small
price,but the fact is the Hard drive NEEDS
the solder(pwr cable) To be able.to function properly.So even
though the solder is plentiful and cheap,and does a simple job
It is still just as important as the hard drive,so it should be treated with better respect.

Ok Let's see Trump do it.

Go look at the some of the big name CEOs out there and you tell me if their out of shape bodies could do some bull work.

Most Ceo's work all day in climate controlled areas,and sit
behind a desk. There farthest they walk is to the snack machine.
They even have people make and bring them coffee and food.
Unless the manual labor is lifing a fork.or counting
money,I honestly dont think a person that hails from an office
enviroment could do that sort of work.

Its like throwing a penguin in the sahara,there not
adapted to that enviroment.

@Gshredder

You keep going to the "importance" of the whole picture, but I've already said, importance is not the factor here. At the end of the day, if a harddrive fails, you're looking at losing the ENTIRE computer, because that's the brains of the entire system. If the solder fails, you go out to radioshack/homedepot/loews and get some solder and sit down and fix it. Nothing serious has been lost.

Here's the point I'm trying to make and that's it:

The skills required to do your average "blue-collar" working job are not hard to acquire. The skills required to be a CEO or "higher-up" are much harder to acquire.


In general, you and I could not run a franchise or do what Trump does. However, most of us could flip burgers or clean hotel rooms.

I work in an office environment and sit behind a computer and don't walk further than 3 blocks or so to get to the atrium where several coworkers and I eat our lunches. I also lift weights 3 times a week (thinking maybe upping it to 6, not sure), play 2+ hours of full court basketball and hustle while playing, and also play tennis for 2-3 hours once or twice a week. I can easily do the job you describe and I work in an office environment. Jeff is in an office environment while working on his PhD. I don't know about his exercise routine if he has one, but I would bet while taking dog odds that he can easily do grunt work. The type of assumption you are making is simply incorrect.

Physical abilities can be acquired - having the intellect to be a CEO may not be something that can be acquired, even with persistent studies. As Jeff said, I doubt I could be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but I know I can do the grunt work of any factory job and I know that 99% of factory workers cannot do my job. Supple + demand.

@Btimm Your not A Ceo.Plus,thats you btimm,not every other
person who sits behind a desk.

@jeff I wont deny that. But as long as someone is working
regardless of skills they should be payed a decent wage to survive on.

No, I am not a CEO, but this is how the vast majority of people I work with treat their bodies. The notion that people who work at desks all the time are out of shape is just not true anymore. And I know for a fact that many of the people who hold upper management positions in my company work out on a regular basis - it's just too important these days not to do so.

I think CEO's should work out more and brush their teeth for a full two minutes with a really soft brush. Then they would be nicer to poor people.

Many people can lift 60lbs bags of cement all day and I bet many CEOs can do it also. However, many people can't be CEOs. The CEO of my company gets here from Pasadena everyday at 6:30am and worksout in the gym here. I usually see him when I'm getting here at 8:00am. He sometimes leaves after I do. He also drives a 2005 Prius. We're a company of about 400 people. I'm sure he makes 10 to 20 times what I make but he earns it.

He is responsible for managing this whole operation and has to ensure that we are profitable and growing as a company. As long as he does, he gets paid to do so. Just as a Major league player is paid to hit a round ball with a round bat and acheives whatever stats he is paid to do so, he will continue to get what he deserves.

We all like to think because we work hard all day that we should get paid more but it's just not reallity.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT...
I was once told that if you work from the neck down you could earn 50-100 grand but millionaires are made by working from the neck up.

@MoshZilla1016
Exactly. For my Ph.D program, I'm always told this:

You guys get paid to think, not to do.

Back to finances, I am glad that a few states started implementing drug tests for welfare. It's definitely a quality start. I get tested randomly for my career path, those getting aid should as well. Plus, if they need government assistance, then they obviously can't afford to waste money on drugs. This should be mandated by all 50 states.

Well if welfare is your job,then it should be treated like one.
Drug tests included.

Btimm,In your opinion,do you think alchohol and tabbacco
should be welfare disqualifiers?

@ gshredder2112: That's a really tough call, because they aren't illegal and would be very difficult to regulate. It'd be great if the people on welfare would just realize that adds to their problems by removing money they would have had to spend on something productive or to save, but this isn't a fantasy world.

Virginia will never remove tobacco. It is a huge cashcrop for our country. Marijuana could be a huge cashcrop as well. Alcohol... well that's a different story. You're talking about something that was drank more than water in our earlier years (this is because it was safer than drinking water, which was almost always contaminated). Alcohol will never be removed from our society, and as an avid drinker, I would not like to see it removed.

However, I understand the bias that comes out, since there is a ban on Marijuana and not on alcohol or tobacco. But you also have to realize is that where do you draw the line? Do you allow all drugs or do you just allow some drugs. If it's some, how do you draw the line for what's legal and what's not? Do you only regulate consumption instead of supply?

You're getting into a very complicated subject.


And on welfare. I don't care about the drug tests, but you should only be able to stay on welfare for up to 6 months. After which, you're on your own, and not allowed to reapply for another year.

@Btimm, I agree in theory but in reallity a drug user will then use some of the welfare money to buy a clean test. Therefore the state and the user are spending more of our tax dollars. Drug tests and administration of those tests are expensive.

This is probably a better solution than drug testing.