Rich people and taxes

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Hi!




He will not have a problem. However, the IRS has power to access YOUR money, and can call upon guns (i.e. law enforcement) to back up their point.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

Proving my point Peter.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

It's called "corporate governance", aka fiscal discipline, and it's hard to pull off whether in a real corporation or in public sector. I think the keys are accountability ("why did you spend that") and alignment of goals: In cultures that measure power by money you can spend and number of staff reporting to you, it's like holding back the tide. If managers are rewarded for not spending money they've budgeted (in some companies it's almost considered a crime of poor planning to not spend your budget) through bonus or other incentive, maybe there can be progress. But, this is a very common, very tough problem.

Yup, because the flip side (rewards for not spending your budget), results in increasing requirements and decreasing resources. A situation no one wants to be in.

James.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

1-What kind of definition of socialism do you operate with? 2-Furthermore, can you back up that definition with any kind of reference to a widely respected source? 3-Or do you just use the word as a grab-bag term for political opinions not to your liking?
4-Have you ever lived in a place where the govt. at the time defined itself as socialistic? 5-Or even lived in a place where self-described socialists have had political representation? 6-Or even visited such a place?

While I do not vote socialist, I dare say that I would know more about socialism than you, since I can say "yes" to all 3 last questions, and you seem to have a very shaky grasp of the topic.

1,2-
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

The tax revenue is needed to fund remedial action:

1) Improve the inner city schools to train workers for higher paying jobs. Seems to fit into definition 1. Are we to train our kinder to be good little wage slaves for the corporation? What happened to self-determinism, I can be whatever I dream to be?
2) Subsidize child care for single mothers so that they can go to work.Why? Where are the fathers and other family? Why subsidize the behavior of an uninvolved father or extended family? We've done that for a while now and all it's gotten us is MORE single mothers! Or a different tact, who then is raising the child? The State takes responsibility! The State to the rescue! Oh, and we don't approve of YOUR values (they're what got you into this mess in the first place, or the lack thereof.) so we'll use the latest suggestions from our annointed experts... APPOINTED experts.
3) Hire and train more police to maintain order in the blighted areas so that businesses can operate efficiently and students can concentrate on their education.Ah, save people from the "blighted" areas. Isuggest you look at some areas the government considers "blighted." And, of course we need more cops, the masses just won't behave, they don't know what's good for them, they just won't "listen to reason."
4) Subsidize health care for the working poor to the point where they no longer have to go on welfare or use emergency rooms in order to recieve treatment. Where to draw the line? Who makes the decision? Should we spend $1.2M on the non-college graduate laborer or on the starving artist who has yet to make that cultural breakthrough?
5) Offer sufficient incentives for businesses to relocate to blighted areas and provide local jobs and services. This one is one I can halfway support.
6) Hire and train more personel to enforce our immigration laws by deporting illegals and imposing sanctions on the businesses that hire them. I can sort of support this one, too.

3- I must admit to having been guilty of this in the past. I endeavor to do better and do not believe I am guilty in this case

4- No.

5- Yes. The USA!

6- See above.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

So we are to accept the fact that employers want to circumvent minimum wage laws by hiring illegal immigrants, rather than demanding that they follow such laws?

Well you said it's a fact; accept it or not as you choose.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Since they think it is bad for them, then we should let them disregard the laws?

No. I don't think I said we should let them disregard the law. However the INCENTIVE that minimum wage laws create, is for employers to gamble on lax enforcement of immigration laws. They are doing simple risk analysis and management.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

In contrast, you take issue with any carrot approach to poor people, and demand that they follow laws as they stand.

Me - I demand that both should follow laws.

I demand that ALL be held responsible for their OWN actions. Your carrot approach is acquiessence to the power, real or imagined, of the mob.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I have a problem with government artificed wealth redistribution schemes. ...The government doesn't have the knowledge needed to distribute, or redistribute, wealth; no individual or individual organization does.

If that were indeed the goal I would say they're damned inefficient about it. Executive pay has gone through the ceiling while middle class and lower have had essentially static wages (inflation adjusted) for years. The ratio of executive pay to average worker in the same company has gone through the ceiling. The percentage of US wealth owned by the top 1% or 5% households has grown, and the % of taxation paid by the top % of households has decreased. Wealth redistribution if anything is going the other way (reverse Robin Hood) myths of creeping socialism to the contrary.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by gojujay

1,2-
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

You missed a crucial word - reference. While the definition seems good, you did not provide a reference to from where you had cribbed it.

Originally Posted by gojujay

3) Hire and train more police to maintain order in the blighted areas so that businesses can operate efficiently and students can concentrate on their education.Ah, save people from the "blighted" areas. I suggest you look at some areas the government considers "blighted." And, of course we need more cops, the masses just won't behave, they don't know what's good for them, they just won't "listen to reason."

Surprising, I would have guessed that "more cops" would have been a winner with you.

Originally Posted by gojujay

4) Subsidize health care for the working poor to the point where they no longer have to go on welfare or use emergency rooms in order to recieve treatment. Where to draw the line? Who makes the decision? Should we spend $1.2M on the non-college graduate laborer or on the starving artist who has yet to make that cultural breakthrough?

Don´t know where you got that $1.2M figure from. Any citations? Anyway, the objective is to spend smaller amounts of money so that they do not have to visit the emergency room at all for preventable diseases, and can can continue being tax-payers all along. But that has been covered in other threads.

Originally Posted by gojujay

5) Offer sufficient incentives for businesses to relocate to blighted areas and provide local jobs and services. This one is one I can halfway support.

But will they go there without "more cops"?

Originally Posted by gojujay

5- Yes. The USA!
6- See above.

I did a google search, and found no elected representatives of any left parties into elected bodies in the USA. Some Green and Libertarian electoral successes in minor local elections, but no other 3rd party electoral successes. Which socialist electoral successes in the USA are you referring to, which would validate your yes answers in questions 5&6? Have you ever been to any other country than USA, which had any socialist electoral success? Ever been outside USA at all?

Originally Posted by gojujay

Well you said it's a fact; accept it or not as you choose. No. I don't think I said we should let them disregard the law. However the INCENTIVE that minimum wage laws create, is for employers to gamble on lax enforcement of immigration laws. They are doing simple risk analysis and management.

So, do you advocate any specific deterrents, which would alter their risk analysis? In Sweden, employers who hire immigrants without work permits can get major fines. In big cases, their company will be liquidated, and they can be forbidden from owning or be in a leading position within a company for a set time (usually 5-10 years), or for life.

Originally Posted by gojujay

Your carrot approach is acquiessence to the power, real or imagined, of the mob.

In which post in this thread have I advocated a carrot approach to the mob?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

If that were indeed the goal I would say they're damned inefficient about it. Executive pay has gone through the ceiling while middle class and lower have had essentially static wages (inflation adjusted) for years. The ratio of executive pay to average worker in the same company has gone through the ceiling. The percentage of US wealth owned by the top 1% or 5% households has grown, and the % of taxation paid by the top % of households has decreased. Wealth redistribution if anything is going the other way (reverse Robin Hood) myths of creeping socialism to the contrary.

What are you including in Executive pay? Are you talking total compensation, i.e. options and the like? Even if not, I will accept, prima facia, your assertion. I never said I was against organized labor As to myths of "creeping socialism" ( I like that phrase, by the way) it has more to deal with the changing zeitgeist than anything else. The myths are that you should rely on faceless others to dole you out of your woes.

[jeff]

Yes, I consider total compensation, not paycheck alone, as does everyone who looks at this. Much executive compensation is through options, stock grants, paid expenses and other benefits.

The myth you mention is a straw man. Nobody says (at least, nobody sensible, and certainly nobody of responsibility or importance in US politics) that one should rely on faceless others.

The myth that is prevalent is the idea that we're under - aghast! - the threat of socialism, when the reverse is what's happening. Glad you like the "creeping socialism" line - use it if you like (but it doesn't reflect reality! )

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

You missed a crucial word - reference. While the definition seems good, you did not provide a reference to from where you had cribbed it.

Webster.com

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Surprising, I would have guessed that "more cops" would have been a winner with you.

Shame on you for your prejudice.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Don´t know where you got that $1.2M figure from. Any citations? Anyway, the objective is to spend smaller amounts of money so that they do not have to visit the emergency room at all for preventable diseases, and can can continue being tax-payers all along. But that has been covered in other threads.

$1.2 M is a made up figure for example purposes only. However, I do know that the State of California spent over $1M to keep a terminal inmate alive for about 3 months. And that doesn't even take the Custody overtime money spent watching this gem into account.

The incentives created by removing the financial component of healthcare as a consideration are more use of healthcare for trivial illnesses. I have seen this FIRSTHAND in, granted a warped setting, prison. We have inmates demanding to see a physician for things they never would have gone to the doctor for on the street, e.g. colds, minor (and I mean minor) cuts and the like.

Don't get the idea that I'm against public health, i.e. free vaccinations and such, but maybe I'm jaded by what I've seen of human behavior.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

But will they go there without "more cops"?

If the financial incentive is strong enough

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

I did a google search, and found no elected representatives of any left parties into elected bodies in the USA. Some Green and Libertarian electoral successes in minor local elections, but no other 3rd party electoral successes. Which socialist electoral successes in the USA are you referring to, which would validate your yes answers in questions 5&6? Have you ever been to any other country than USA, which had any socialist electoral success? Ever been outside USA at all?

They have a guy elected out of Vermont that is an avowed Socialist, I believe, though he's listed as an Independent. And your question was

Or even lived in a place where self-described socialists have had political representation?

I submit that all citizens, and many illegal aliens, in the USA have political representation. As to outside of the US, I was in the military, Navy specifically, and have been all over the Pacific Rim and Indian Ocean, so I don't know if you'd count that

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

So, do you advocate any specific deterrents, which would alter their risk analysis? In Sweden, employers who hire immigrants without work permits can get major fines. In big cases, their company will be liquidated, and they can be forbidden from owning or be in a leading position within a company for a set time (usually 5-10 years), or for life.

I like the new proposal out of Georgia, USA. It sounds like it may be a realistic approach, but I haven't studied it.

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

In which post in this thread have I advocated a carrot approach to the mob?

I think this is in response to the original poster's assertation and my take on his description of the "working poor";

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

As a result of our refusal to pony up the tax revenue needed to remedy the situation, discontent amongst the unemployed and working poor increases to the point where police brutality during a routine traffic stop becomes the spark that sets off the conflagration and looting.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Yes, I consider total compensation, not paycheck alone, as does everyone who looks at this. Much executive compensation is through options, stock grants, paid expenses and other benefits.

The myth you mention is a straw man. Nobody says (at least, nobody sensible, and certainly nobody of responsibility or importance in US politics) that one should rely on faceless others.

Isn't that the incentive created though? Isn't the cry for more benefits? Any opinion to the contrary is usually painted as heartless and Scrooge-like. By the way, I do believe the wealthy have an obligation to the poor, just not at the end of a gun/IRS.

Originally Posted by jeff

The myth that is prevalent is the idea that we're under - aghast! - the threat of socialism, when the reverse is what's happening. Glad you like the "creeping socialism" line - use it if you like (but it doesn't reflect reality! )

I think what we have, in accepting socialistic tendencies, is what socialism, in reality is; Rule by a privileged class, buying the willingness of the citizens to be ruled

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Isn't that the incentive created though? Isn't the cry for more benefits? Any opinion to the contrary is usually painted as heartless and Scrooge-like. By the way, I do believe the wealthy have an obligation to the poor, just not at the end of a gun/IRS.I think what we have, in accepting socialistic tendencies, is what socialism, in reality is; Rule by a privileged class, buying the willingness of the citizens to be ruled

Sorry, I don't understand your post at all. I'm talking about executive compensation, where somebody might get paid $10M in salary and another $20M in paid services, options, healthcare, private jet. Who's crying for more? What incentive does that create? In fact, compliant boards hand over goodies to retiring execs (eg: ex CEOs of Exxon and GE) No incentive, since they're retired! Socialism is rule by a privileged class? No, that's hardly what socialism is defined as - quite to the contrary.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Sorry, I don't understand your post at all. I'm talking about executive compensation, where somebody might get paid $10M in salary and another $20M in paid services, options, healthcare, private jet. Who's crying for more? What incentive does that create? In fact, compliant boards hand over goodies to retiring execs (eg: ex CEOs of Exxon and GE) No incentive, since they're retired!

I think I was talking about how society will accept more and more socialistic tendencies, in small doses, and then see those changes as the "norm." Not sure, having too many threads going through my head and conflicting/interacting with work. In strange ways as well.
As to executive compensation, why do stockholders allow such excess? Pay discrepancy between bosses and bossees... How many willing people can actually do the bosses job? It isn't popular but it seems to ultimately be a question of supply and demand.

Originally Posted by jeff

Socialism is rule by a privileged class? No, that's hardly what socialism is defined as - quite to the contrary.

The "Democratic Socialism" view? People here in this country say that our electoral process is screwed up now. I can only imagine when the State rules the means of production. If you think we've got troubles with career burueacrats and petty fiefdoms now, just wait 'til this monster comes into play.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I think I was talking about how society will accept more and more socialistic tendencies, in small doses, and then see those changes as the "norm." (snip)

I don't understand why you believe that. The exact opposite has happened: we increasingly accept tilting economic factors to favor the wealthy.

Originally Posted by gojujay

As to executive compensation, why do stockholders allow such excess? Pay discrepancy between bosses and bossees... How many willing people can actually do the bosses job?

Actually, it's a problem cause by too-cozy board members and powerless shareholders. It's just an illusion that the shareholder exerts any influence on executive compensation. This has been frequently been written about as a shareholder concern. When companies pay executives Midas-like fortunes even when their own perforrnance is weak, it's not the 'pay for performance' that's demanded of the regular worker.

Originally Posted by gojujay

The "Democratic Socialism" view? People here in this country say that our electoral process is screwed up now. I can only imagine when the State rules the means of production. If you think we've got troubles with career burueacrats and petty fiefdoms now, just wait 'til this monster comes into play.

Well, since all trends are to the opposite direction - did I miss nationalization of the steel industry since I turned the TV off? We even outsource parts of military infrastructure in a way unthinkable 20 years ago, you have nothing to worry about in this regard.

Why do people worry about increasing socialism when the reverse is happening.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by gojujay

The "Democratic Socialism" view? People here in this country say that our electoral process is screwed up now. I can only imagine when the State rules the means of production. If you think we've got troubles with career burueacrats and petty fiefdoms now, just wait 'til this monster comes into play.

In an earlier post I seem to remember you mentioning something about people "voting with their feet". If Democratic Socialism as you define it is such a "monster", why is it that so many of the immigrants clamoring at our gate are Latin Americans from capitalist oligarchies rather than Scandinavians and other Europeans from Democratic Socialist states.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

I don't understand why you believe that. The exact opposite has happened: we increasingly accept tilting economic factors to favor the wealthy.

The pendulum swinging the other way, perhaps? I worry about socialism because it is so seductive. The illusion that one can have his cake and eat it too. Check my signature line.

Originally Posted by jeff

Actually, it's a problem caused by too-cozy board members and powerless shareholders. It's just an illusion that the shareholder exerts any influence on executive compensation. This has been frequently been written about as a shareholder concern. When companies pay executives Midas-like fortunes even when their own perforrnance is weak, it's not the 'pay for performance' that's demanded of the regular worker.

Are you telling me that government has failed to keep a level playing field? I don't have a problem with the govt. taking steps to curb smoke-filled, backroom deals. However, I do worry that they will throw the baby out with the bathwater under the guise of "social justice."

Originally Posted by jeff

Well, since all trends are to the opposite direction - did I miss nationalization of the steel industry since I turned the TV off? We even outsource parts of military infrastructure in a way unthinkable 20 years ago, you have nothing to worry about in this regard.

I don't think that private industry is the answer to all our needs, especially when it comes to actual public goods. I suppose the problem I have is when screwy policies get traction in the media and people actually start to take such notions seriously.

Originally Posted by jeff

Why do people worry about increasing socialism when the reverse is happening.

Because the pendulum will swing the other way eventually and I want to minimize that swing.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by Dr. Pfleschbach

In an earlier post I seem to remember you mentioning something about people "voting with their feet". If Democratic Socialism as you define it is such a "monster", why is it that so many of the immigrants clamoring at our gate are Latin Americans from capitalist oligarchies rather than Scandinavians and other Europeans from Democratic Socialist states.

Because they are being ripped off in their own countries. The informal laws that govern most of their society are at odds with the formal laws that keep the wealthy in their feather beds. I would submit that these countries are NOT capitalistic states.

[Dr. Pfleschbach]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Because they are being ripped off in their own countries. The informal laws that govern most of their society are at odds with the formal laws that keep the wealthy in their feather beds. I would submit that these countries are NOT capitalistic states.

They are getting ripped off alright. I would submit that they are victims of laissez faire capitalism operating without restraint. You haven't responded to the second part of my question regarding why European socialists seem content to stay home.