I don't know. I'm looking at that Iowa game thinking it will resemble those NW games after the upset in the Tressel era. Nasty.
Gotta kick the dead horse again. A little late also. Kid's events and whatnot.
Your numbers may be accurate but philosophically, who are you or I to tell a company how much they should make, pay, grow, etc.? They pay wages and benefits according to what the market bears. They aren't forcing it on anyone. It isn't Walmart's fault that in a depressed area, there may not be better paying jobs for everyone.
No country on earth has produced the standard of living that this one has on such a macro level. There may be some other countries with a higher overall standard of living, but they are tiny by comparison. People complain about the so called 1%, but really, the poorest people in this country are far better off than a very large portion of the populace around the world.
Your point about my salary increasing with a rise in lower salaries only illustrates that there is no real way to close the gap. You only change the raw numbers, not the percentages, because the cost of goods ultimately will settle in at about the same place compared to median income as they are now. People will largely remain in their strata no matter what. Your proposed increases across the board won't mean that those among the lowest wage earners will suddenly be able to buy more than they were able to previously.
The way to change the policies of a corporation in a free market economy is to discontinue buying their products. If you don't like what they do, don't shop there and do your best to convince others to spend their money elsewhere while petitioning and protesting. Don't tell me that won't work at a particular place either, because these policies are set on a national scale for a company like Walmart and there are plenty of their stores in well to do areas where most of the people shopping there would easily be capable of going to other stores.
Ultimately, when you say the market needs to take ownership, you can only mean consumers. That is the market.
BTW, love all you guys.
Thanks for the spirited debate today! I know it's a little taboo here, but I found it exhilirating.
Again, there will always be rich and there will always be poor. Taking from one man and giving to another by force of law is not a good way of "evening up the odds" so to speak.
I get that not all people who live in poverty are lazy. However, it is human nature to accept benefits and if fed and housed, then some folks will simply stay that way. A gentle push to get out and work in some cases should not be unwelcome by society, nor an opinion to that effect generate scorn. Especially in an economy with record
unemployment. If you notice, I have not said any program should be abolished. Healthy societies take care of those down on their luck.
My point about dictating what a company can make is that that is the only way you are going to change what you clearly consider to be unfair profiteering by a business which avails itself of laws that are on the books to pay as little tax as possible. The purpose of a corporation is not to provide wages or benefits to employees, but ultimately to make a profit. You do that by spending as little as you can on overhead and taking advantage of as many tax breaks as are available.
I don't see wealthy people as victims either. However, it is not a magnanimous thing to take more from someone by percentage because they have worked hard to gain a better station in life and simply hand it over to someone else. Ultimately, this is state sponsored theft. For some reason, this is acceptable to a huge portion of our country. Mostly to people who vote a certain way.
I would not classify myself as well to do, but I make a very nice living. I do because I have worked hard and not because it was handed to me. I am not "more fortunate" than others in this regard, I earned it. I fail to see why I should just accept paying 50% of what I make to various governments because I have made my way to this point. That doesn't even include things like sales tax and property tax and ad-valorem tax, and special allocation tax and taxes on utility bills and on and on......
He also officially took us off the gold standard, which has caused massive inflation since the 70's.
I hear you. But what you are talking about is the difference between corporate and investment taxation and wage taxation. The reason Mr. Buffet pays a low rate is because it is taxation on his investments, which is capital gains and not wage. And corporate taxation? There will always be ways for large corporations to use a global system to circumvent taxation, be it by way of friendly policies designed to entice companies to do business in a certain way or area or by outright evasion.
If you are paid a wage of $15 / hour, you will essentially not pay federal taxes when you finally get your returns. They only real tax liability you will have is FICA and whatever state/local taxes you would pay. It isn't until you get to about $50K / year that, after deductions and credits, you would pay any federal tax. From here on, as you make a higher WAGE or salary, you pay a higher percentage of tax. So again, the more successful you are as a professional, the more of every dollar you earn is taken by Uncle Sam.
And I really don't want to live in a country which begins to dictate what a business can make. That would be Fascism. No thanks. If you disagree with a company's policies, don't support them. If you can convince enough people to join in, they'll change for their own benefit. You see on a regular basis companies changing policies/positions based on public backlash.
Really, insurance in general is the ruination of our society. I can't believe the amount of money I spend to insure the many aspects of life. Used to be you would negotiate directly for the payment of medical services. It has been since we began to subrogate this negotiation that costs have skyrocketed.
Someone once said the poor will always be among us. I think this is what is really lost in the situation. There are plenty of vehicles available to people to better their situations without having to be on the dole. Again, these programs were never intended to be long term solutions but that is often how they are used.
The simple fact that these programs do exist and can be used in this manner helps to proliferate the very situation you describe. There is no impetus to change it. Why bother? It seems like the status quo is acceptable, so let's just go with it.
And really, you want to use Walmart as the example of corporate bastardry holding down the little guy, but they actually pay a pretty decent wage for the level of skill required for the job. What should the pay to stock shelves, $30 / hour? How much more would you have to pay for their products to support this? Same with McDonald's or any other business. This expense would just be passed on anyway. If I have to pay more, I demand more salary to support my own lifestyle, which will not be satisfied by earning the same as someone sweeping the floor; therefore the differential will never really change by percentage or perception.
It's certainly a complex issue. However, just acquiescing to paying more and more taxes is not solving the issue, either. You don't have to work for Wal-mart after all. And if you do, should you really expect to be a cashier or a greeter or a stock boy or one of the people who accost you with a scanner while you're leaving as if you stole what you just purchased and be able to support a family? These are great jobs for many people's situations, mostly in a supplemental capacity. But a primary bread-winner? I would not say so.
Taxes in and of themselves are not a problem. Death and Taxes, after all. The issue is the way we punish people for being successful reward others for lethargy with the tax law which is supporting a bloated social benefit structure.
We have created a dependency state where a too large portion of our society is highly dependent upon the government for at least some of their needs, if not the majority of them.
I don't think anyone has a problem with a safety net. Instead, it's a way of life for many. That's not how it should be.
We've discovered that we can vote for ourselves goodies from the treasury. That is not a good thing. Road to hell, meet intentions. They'll be performing paving services, courtesy of John Q. Taxpayer.
And then it didn't count wages as income. If everyone had to write a check instead of having it conveniently taken from payroll so they don't ever miss it, we'd have a much lower tax rate.
"Only". LOL. This makes me cringe every time I am paid a bonus.
It's been really fun watching the gradual change of opinion my UM coworker has of Jim Harbaugh. When Harbaugh was hired, my colleague was absolutely convinced UM was going to be an instant annual playoff contender. I sent him a snap shot of an article speculating Harbaugh's contract would be extended, and the response was despair. Glorious!
I could have accepted the targeting call much more easily had they ejected the Clemson linebacker for headhunting and already tackled and horizontal JK Dobbins on like the very next possession. That hit checked off all of the boxes, including intent. This alone puts me in mind of bias against our boys.
Mine, too. I also left off the /s.
As with anything, just because you can do it, that doesn't mean you should. There are consequences to actions. I am free to say anything I want in this country. Still, if I call my boss an asshole, I would expect I might be fired or disciplined. This is the way of the world. If you test the waters in the portal, this will have consequences, even if you don't intend to go anywhere.
No. I no longer consume eSECpn content. I have not looked at any of their channels or websites since you know when.
My local school district has actually cancelled school for a forecast of flurries. This is not an embellishment.
Strictly speaking about temperature. I have lived in GA for about 15 years. Cold doesn't bother me, but I'm a transplant. I've said this before, though. Southerners are personally offended by low temperatures. It literally makes many of them angry. It's a real thing.
Looking forward to the carnage when Iowa comes to The Shoe.
A points system would fix the ridiculous schedule inequities between conferences pretty quickly. No points awarded for playing FCS teams, with a minimum requirement to be eligible for playoff participation, would force schools that want to make the playoff to change their scheduling practices.