Unions, Taxes, and Class Warfare

[Lokrian]

Originally posted by Aristotle
Lokrian, someone who is given a job by someone else who created the job is not being "bilked." For almost every job that exists in this country, some person had to work their ass off and risk their own money to build that business enough that it could support more employees.

Until you stop saying crazy stuff like employees are being "bilked out of a decent wage", you are not participating in a rational discussion.

If most people thought like you, I would agree I was being irrational. Given that the idea that unions are in need of being done away with and wages don't need protection at all is not really any sort of mainstream idea, I don't know where this accusation comes from.

Originally posted by Aristotle
If you don't like the wage you are earning, start your own business. Its so easy after all, right?

As I've noted, I am an independant contractor. Not everyone who goes into business for themselves does it in a way that is all that risky. Often enough you can work for a while in an industry, get a feel for it, and then branch out on your own. Some industries are more amenable to that than others. It's really beside the point to the need for unions I think. If a small business owner is in a business where unions operate, then they need to take that into account in their business plan. I am not any less sympathetic for business owners than workers, it's just that I am not any more sympathetic for them either.

Originally posted by Aristotle
If you save $166 a month ($38 per week) for 41 years, you can retire a millionaire (age 18 to 59 for example). That's it. If you don't smoke, don't drink, and don't have more kids than you can afford, that's a really easy goal to achieve. Heck, you probably only have to do 1 or 2 out of those 3.

The average cost of a pack of cigarettes in the US is $4. If you smoke a pack and a half per day, all you have to do is quit smoking and you can be a millionaire in 41 years.

Statistics like this are easy to toss out. They ignore the variability in life. What about education costs? What about sudden illness? Life is not always amenable to this sort of thinking. Furthermore, the less you make, obviously, the less convenient it gets to part with $166 a month. At a certain point it gets impossible.

Originally posted by Aristotle
That is because there is a huge disparity in how hard people want to work, how much of a priority some people put on their education, the degree to which some people are willing to not give into their vices (smoking, drinking, wantonly impregnating or getting pregnant, etc), how smart people are, how gifted and talented people are, how creative people are, and how productive people are.

Yes, there are people in the US who make a lot more than other people. But guess what: most of these people are also a lot more productive. Sure, some people inherit their wealth or just get lucky, but that is the minority (and since estate taxes are one of the few taxes I think are good, I'm covered there).

Until you are willing to accept that *FACT* of the universe, reality will continue to pass you by.

I think where reality is passing you by is that though there are indeed wide disparities between the best of the best and the worst of the worst, there is not that large of a disparity between average and the best of the best. I have yet to meet anyone so good that I honestly thought they were doing a job even so much as 10 times more valuable than an average, resposible worker, much less the dozens and dozens of times over that the top wage earners get. There is a point of diminishing returns on how much it actually helps to shuffle cash off to the top 1%, or even 5%, or possibly even 10%. The exact line? Heck I don't know.

Another thing you neglect to take into acount is that realistically, large numbers always outgun small ones, no matter how clever they may be, so the mass of humanity that the top percentage attempts to leave behind will simply not let them get away with demanding too many resources. Ultimately, everything comes from the land and work, and the land belongs to the strong and work is done by the masses. You just can't dismiss that reality the way it seems to me that you do.

Historically, the best leaders get way out in front of that rather than trying to ride the ragged edge of mass dissent. It's not asking that much not to lord it over the working man too egregiously.

Originally posted by Aristotle
The very fact that you keep reacting so negatively to my reporting that the bottom 50% is carried by the top 50% is evidence of some SERIOUS denial.

No, it's just that I know you can't get taxes out of people who don't have it to give. They have no money because their wages are too low. We've been over this. Simply stating I am wrong is not terribly informative, and no fun at all. Heck, I already KNOW I could be wrong or misunderstanding you in some way, or I wouldn't be bothering to carry on this conversation. I'd roll my eyes at you and go back to Threshing.

Originally posted by Aristotle
I already said that the people being carried do not have to feel ashamed about this nor does it make them less worthwhile human beings. But to deny they are being carried is just to put one's head in the sand.

The reason I do not believe they are being carried is because I do not believe they need to be making so little. Therefore, I see the smaller percentage of tax they pay as only partial compensation for what they are owed, assuming they are not a part of the non-working poor, which to me is a slightly different topic that would, in my view, include such things as forced labor and forced training. Here I think I am well to the right of you. You have said several times you think people should be allowed to be lazy. If they are taking an ounce of government money, then no, they have no right to be lazy. If they want to be lazy, they need to be lazy on their own dime.

Maybe I misunderstood you somewhere on that as well.

Originally posted by Aristotle
You can NEVER create some nice bell curve where the majority of the populace is clustered in the middle with gradual slopes in the direction of rich and poor. People just are not that similar to each other. The disparity in ability is just too enormous to achieve such a bell curve unless you punitively destroy the cream of the crop. The negative ramifications of doing that are both enormous and obvious.

Well, if you try to stretch too far from that curve, see my above comments on the results.

Originally posted by Aristotle
Because you specifically asked *ME* if *I* know any poor people (implying I did not, and thus did not know anything about the issue) and specifically accused *ME* of thinking poor people are "horrible people." You made it explicitly personal.

I am just going to have to appologize for that then. I have pointed out what things have been said that make me feel as if those are your feelings. It appears to be a dead end issue. I surely did not mean to insult you. I just was, and to an extent still am, amazed at what appears to me to be a sort of dismissive attitude towards a really large portion of the population.

Originally posted by Aristotle
You don't get it. I didn't want an easier way. I was not entitled to an easier way. It would not be efficient to have artificially given me an easier way.

The problem is, most attempts to "give an easier way" that come from the government do the opposite. Also, the wasteful cost of creating this "easier way" makes the reward at the end of all the work less.

Here's an analogy. If it takes 1,000 hours of effort to hook up with Salma Hayek, you can decide whether or not you are willing to put in the work for that reward. Having the government come along and change that to 100 hours, and swap Salma Hayek for Janet Reno is not the kind of help anyone wants or needs.

I do get it. I used to believe that too, as I have noted above to someone or other. When you have some ideas on how to balance the advantages of incorporation with the needs of labor that doesn't involve any unions, I would like to hear that. As I have noted before though, the artificial advantages for the most part belong to the wealthy, not to the poor.