 |
| Ayn Rand |
Congressman Paul Ryan was known for passing out copies of Atlas Shrugged to his Congressional staff.
In 2005, Ryan said, "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."
"Collectivism" is the Randian term for any social contract that sees helping the poor as an obligation of the strong, rich, and powerful.
Ryan's attempts now to distance himself from the Russian atheist is just what American politicians do: rewrite history, attempt to change their stripes, hide their real motivations. That he would need to distance himself, deny his Creator (so to speak), is made abundantly clear by such Rand pronouncements as this one: "It was the morality of altruism that undercut America and is now destroying her.”
The late Gore Vidal had a bit to say about Ayn Rand and the impulses that made her fashionable among young hotshots like Paul Ryan:
Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.”
The Ryan Budget is evil. That isn't an over-statement.
"More than any other politician today, Paul Ryan exemplifies the social Darwinism at the core of today's Republican Party: Reward the rich, penalize the poor, let everyone else fend for themselves. Dog eat dog." Robert Reich, today, on Huffington Post.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who reads what Robert Reich has to say is definately a "libtard" and has no idea about how to stop the extreme debt that this country is headed toward with statist, collectivist and progressives in charge. It is always wealth envy and taxes that the "rich" get. Almost half in this country pay no tax now. The top 10 percent now pay about 70 percent of Fed. income taxes with only 43 percent of the income. What the hell do you folks want?
ReplyDeleteWe want commenter like you to understand how taxes are regressive and that they disproportionally affect the poor. I learned the basic concept when I applied for a home loan and, whereas I thought I thought I was close to the percentages, the loan officer said my income was high enough that I had a large portion of "expendable income" - IE I made enough that all of my basics needs were covered and I had money to blow. The half that pay no taxes now also have no expendable income. The laws that have kept the minimum wage down and helped the rich have given us a huge wealth gap. What the hell do I want? I want the trend to be reversed so that the poor are getting more and the rich are paying their fair share of taxes. The system is set up to enhance their bottom line - not the 90% of the people and your use of the term libtard would suggest that you want to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Wake up. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph.
ReplyDeleteWell, Anon, what most of us on this site want from the rich is a sense of civic responsibility, concern for the common weal (promoting the general welfare as the Constitution's preamble calls it), a willingness to take responsibility for helping those who have helped them, and perhaps to read more deeply than the writings of atheist and cynic Ayn Rand. Social Darwinism has exceedingly weak scientific theoretical foundations as anyone can discover with a little digging. Instead of stigmatizing and stereotyping poor people as suffering from wealth envy, perhaps if the rich changed places with the poor for a while they might develop some empathy for what "struggle" really means.
ReplyDeleteCivic responsibility includes everyone. The over forty percent that pay no taxes also have these responsibilities.
ReplyDeleteThis canard which I guess Fox tells people, that 40 percent don't pay taxes is so ridiculous it should not even warrant a reply, but I will anyway. We all pay taxes every time we by a pack of gum or a loaf of bread or a gallon of gas. In fact the poor pay a larger % of of their income on sales taxes than the rich do. Anyone who works pays payroll taxes but the rich only pay on the first $110,000 of their income and nothing more after that. The people who do not pay federal income taxes (which is where this 40% figure comes from) are often people who have no taxable income, are dependents, disabled, or are too poor to meet the minimum level of income to trigger paying taxes. Anyone should see that this 40% number is false. Yet the bloviators like Rush keep on saying it and halfwits like you, Anon, keep repeating it. You have a civic responsibility to use your noodle.
ReplyDeleteRand worship has always been one of my litmus tests for politicians: if they cite her as an influence it's a problem. I can't help but think of Rand as a Junior High philosopher, someone who appeals to those with precious little wisdom and too high an opinion of themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe 40 % that pay no FEDERAL taxes are the people who grow our food, build our houses, repair our cars, clean our houses and offices, care for our children, empty our bedpans, and keep this country running. They are contributing their share. What good have Mitt Romney(for example) or those Wall Street parasites ever done?
ReplyDeleteSo what do YOU want, Anonymous? Included in those 40% who "don't pay taxes" as you say, are a bunch of children who don't have jobs, a bunch of retired people who don't have jobs, a bunch of disabled people who don't have jobs, and a bunch of unemployed people who don't have jobs because the Republicans wrecked the economy. How do you propose that we collect taxes from those people?? Also, the idea that they "don't pay taxes" is ridiculous, anyway. They may not pay federal income tax, but they pay sales tax, property tax, fees, and many of them pay FICA taxes on every cent of their income, even if they don't pay federal income tax. Why are you defending the wealthy on this? They are sitting back counting their money and laughing at you. If the highest tax bracket went back to what it was during the Clinton years, they wouldn't even notice it. If we're all in this together, and the poor and lower classes are going to suffer real harm from cutting programs, then shouldn't the rich be asked to contribute a little more?
ReplyDeleteAnon,
ReplyDeleteThey are filling their civic responsibility by working hard to make money for the rich. The concept that the rich are operating in a bubble is ridiculous. They are also serving as volunteer firefighters, coach little league, all for no pay. CEO's aren't volunteer firefighters. Mechanics, carpenters, janitors are volunteer firefighters. This notion that you do not contribute because you are poor is pure elitist bullshit. The idea that if you have no expendable income, you must be living off the government. I know good people who have two and three jobs in order to pay their mortgage and keep food on the table. Yeah - they are the ones busting their hump so the rich get richer. You want to accuse of not doing their "civic duty"?
I am solidly middle class with a decent income. I pay taxes at a rate of about 25%.
ReplyDeleteYou know what feels unfair to me? It's not the family of 4 living on $20,000 a year that doesn't pay any federal income tax. As many others have said, they contribute with sales and other taxes. And even if they didn't, I don't feel the need to take food off those children's plates to have them pay $2000 (10%) or $5000 (25%) or even $200 (1%) every year in taxes.
What seems unfair to me is that someone like Mitt Romney, who made over 20 million dollars in 2011, paid a tax rate of 15.4%, lower than mine. I'm not saying that's his fault. I wouldn't expect him to pay more than he owes. But it does show how our tax system is skewed to favor the wealthy in many cases - especially when they can hire accountants to find every loophole and shelter their income in Cayman Island accounts. If Mitt had paid at the same rate I do, 25%, he would have paid about 2 million more in taxes in 2011. I'd rather see that happen than take $2000 each from a thousand families earning $20,000 (which is another way to get 2 million tax dollars).
Put another way, which seems more punitive:
A couple earning $20 million pays 25% in taxes (5 million) and lives on the remaining 15 million dollars.
A family of 4 earning $20,000 pays 25% in taxes and lives on just $15,000 a year.
There is a good reason we have a progressive tax system. At low income levels, every dollar makes a huge difference. At higher income levels the burden is not the same. I have no problem paying at a higher tax rate than someone living below the poverty line; I have a big problem with paying at a higher tax rate than Mitt Romney.
If they don't pay taxes, then they have no skin in the game. They do not care what the amount is that is stolen by the government.
ReplyDeleteYou can't say one group is not living up to its civic responsibilities by not paying enough taxes to suit you while at the same time saying another group is civicaly responsible when no taxes are charged its members at all unless you are a hypocrite.
"If they don't pay taxes, then they have no skin in the game."
ReplyDeletePreposterous.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteSo your argument is that you have to pay taxes to live up to a civic responsibility. A firefighter who does not make enough money to have to pay income taxes is not living up to his civic responsibility? Really? I mechanic at a military base who does not make enough money to qualify for income taxes is not fulfilling his civic responsibility? You might need to rethink that position. The world is not that black and white.
"If they don't pay taxes, then they have no skin in the game."
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's got to be one of the most half-a**ed arguments I've heard in a while. Everyone living in this country has a stake in the course we take, which is why so many of us are worried about how income inequality has ballooned in this country since the 1980s. You know the golden days of the 1950s and 1960s that so many conservatives hearken back to? For much of those decades the income tax rate for the top bracket of earners was over 90% - 90%!! And now the wealthy whine about 35%, when many of them don't even pay that effective rate?
Do firefights ot pay taxes?
ReplyDeleteThe issue of tax paying being one of civic responsibility wasn't mine. I responded to it. Please pay attention.
brotherdoc said...
Well, Anon, what most of us on this site want from the rich is a sense of civic responsibility,
Brotherdoc, This is not meant to be an insulting question , I am a capitalist. I own my own company I work over 80 hours a week with a 7 day a week schedule. I have not taken a vacation in over a decade or had more then one day off in a row in 15 years.
ReplyDeleteMy goal as a business owner is to generate as much income for my self and family and those i want to share it with as possible.
If i am very lucky and through an enormous amount of hard work and sacrifice become successful enough to become one of the people you would consider rich, why then do i need to be responsible for paying once cent more taxes then i am legally required to ?
My accountant charges me a considerable amount of money to make sure i am paying exactly the amount i have to under the threat of imprisonment.
Opoib, it should be a simple choice for you, vote for Ryan; his roadmap plan lowers taxes for the wealthy and raises taxes on the middle class.
ReplyDeletePS: Take some time off and get to know a family member or neighbor; that money you are selling your soul for, 80 hrs a week for years on end,
won't buy you love or respect.
Food for thought here, Opoib:
ReplyDeleteIf someone earning minimum wage (7.25/hour) were to work just as hard as you do -80 hours a week, 52 weeks a year- they would make a whopping $30,160 a year. There are a lot of hard-working people in this country who earn very little money.
And if you're being honest about how much you work, you really should reconsider that kind of work schedule. It's not a healthy lifestyle for you or your family because you're either getting very little sleep or not spending much time with them.
Opoib - As one who has also not had a vacation in a decade and also has a history of 80-hour weeks, as did my dad before me, I also don't want to pay more taxes than I legally have to. My CPA makes sure of it, as well.
ReplyDeleteWe're not the problem. We're not even the point. The problem is that the current tax system taxes our 80-hour weeks at a higher rate than people parking their millions in off-shore accounts, and that we 80-hour-a-weekers (who are putting money BACK into the American economy - unlike the off-shore tax haven folks) don't get the tax breaks that people who are obscenely rich - and got that way because of American laws and American protections - get.
And the tax law changes proposed by Paul Ryan will remove those tax breaks that we DO get (like our home mortgage interest and charitable donations).
From ABC News:
ReplyDeleteThe Institute for Policy Studies analyzed the link between tax loopholes and excessive executive compensation and concluded that the loopholes created an "uneven playing field" between large companies and small businesses and led to lost tax revenue.
The latest edition of the institute's annual Executive Excess compensation study found that in 2011, 26 CEOs received more in compensation than their companies paid in taxes, and that the four major tax loopholes contributing to excessive executive pay cost taxpayers about $14.4 billion a year.
I find this to be a curious statement: "If i am very lucky and through an enormous amount of hard work and sacrifice become successful enough to become one of the people you would consider rich, why then do i need to be responsible for paying one cent more taxes then i am legally required to?"
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, no one is saying that you should pay more right now than you are legally required to. What we ARE saying is that the tax rates should go back to what they were during the Clinton years. Were you in business when Clinton was president? How did your business fare back then? How many more people have you employed as a result of two rounds of Bush tax cuts and the recession? Somehow, I don't think that most business owners would automatically hire more people if they get a tax cut. Demand drives business, NOT tax cuts.
Anon 3:26 I work that hard and that long because i am independent and want to provide for myself and those who i care about on my own.
ReplyDeleteI have never taken a loan for anything in my life. Yes that includes housing or cars or credit cards i drive used and paid cash.
I also have never taken a penny in government assistance no food stamps no subsidies for my housing no welfare no unemployment.
If i sacrifice time from those i would be with by working less, then i feel safe in knowing that myself and my loved ones do not want for what we can not afford and we carry no debt.
My question still stands that i asked Brotherdoc, and will include you now. At what point of earnings does my income require me to have a civic responsibility to share it?
Should that not be choice not law? Law threatens me with imprisonment if i do not pay as much as i legally have to.
If i make a million a year, is that enough? Is it before or after taxes ? Is it net or gross? is it 10 million, is it a billion?
At what point am i required to financially care about those i do not know ?
Anon 3.26, I go to work everyday with out the promise of dollar one per hour since i am a business owner. If no customers come in or i do no jobs then i make nothing, yet i still have the daily overhead to pay by myself.
ReplyDeleteIf someone works 80 hours at min wage to make 30k they should as a single person be able to live on 30k. That may sound harsh but that's working 13 hours a day 6 days a week. That gives a day off a week and 11 hours off a day so 8 for sleep and 3 for family time.
If that person has kids they should consider the cost of children before making one, and if there is a mom and dad then that could be up to 60k and should be enough to cover childcare and feed and house three people.
Min wage is not meant to afford a luxury lifestyle. It is a starting point to work up from. If you have no skills above what you can get a min wage job with then it is up to you to get those skills, that will earn more or to stay at that level.
Dem12, The statement is made over and over that companies have to be civicly responsible. To me that means that companies need to spend more then just their tax liability.
ReplyDeleteI have been open since April 1 2000. I have hired staff and let staff go according to the demand for my services and products of my company.
Who was president at the time did not cause that demand or lack there of my services. How i run my business determines that.
Policies in Washington do not determine my level of customer service or value offered to the customer I do that.
I will ask you also at what point or earning do i need to spend more then just my tax liability to the government to be civically responsible?
Opoib,
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate your point of view about working hard and being able to reap the rewards. I'm sure there are some people who game the system and collect benefits when they could be working, and even more cases in which it's hard to know if someone really should be getting benefits. In fact, my uncle comes to mind - at 55 he gets SS disability because of a heart problem, partly genetic but brought on partly b/c of smoking and poor diet. He's also a strident Republican who complains nonstop about taxes and out-of-control govt. spending. Somehow the irony of the fact that he lives off the govt. dime is lost on him!
However, I was struck by your statement "At what point am i required to financially care about those i do not know ?"
I think that question misses the point. For as long as there have been complex societies with governments, there's been some way of collecting money from people for the "common good". We can debate what that money should be used for, but taxation is not about one individual caring financially for another. A lot of our taxes go to Social Security and Medicare, but those are benefits that each individual enjoys in retirement. Another big chunk goes towards national defense and military spending. Then there's transportation, education, research, a lot of other things. Welfare and other "safety net" programs that could reasonably be construed as being "required to financially care about those i do not know" account for around 10-15 cents for every dollar of taxes. In other words, the vast majority of our tax dollars go towards programs that benefit everyone. And I'd argue that even safety net programs benefit everyone by reducing crime and allowing children who are born into poverty have a chance to pull out of it.
You ask about how much you should have to pay at 1 million, 10 million, etc. That goes to the heart of this debate. I think that gradually progressive tax rates are a good thing but I can understand if not everyone agrees. However, when someone like Romney pays a lower tax rate than me, when he makes something like 300 times as much money as I do, under what system of taxes or morals or economics is that okay??
What you amke is not only dependent on how hard you work, it also depends of the value of the work you do. This is called the free market. many of you are emotionally unable to understand it.
ReplyDelete1014, don't worry, Romney and Ryan plan to tax you more and give large tax breaks to the very wealthy, the "job creators."
ReplyDeleteHey Opoib, you do realize that taxes pay for more than just "welfare" don't you? Is there a public highway that leads to your business? Taxes paid for that. Is there a sidewalk outside your business? Taxes paid for that. Do you ship items that use the interstate highway system? Taxes paid for that, as well as for any bridges that those trucks drive over. Do you employ people? Do you want them to be educated? Taxes paid for those public schools, community colleges and public universities. If there's a fire at your business, who do you call? Taxes pay for those firefighters. I noticed on your blog that you have a memorial to Deputy Mast. He was a public employee and he was paid with money from tax revenues. And on and on and on. When you pay taxes, you are contributing to the common good. Don't you think we all have that responsibility?
ReplyDelete"Dem12, The statement is made over and over that companies have to be civicly responsible. To me that means that companies need to spend more then just their tax liability."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry to sound so petty here, but the word is THAN, not THEN, as in more THAN just their tax liability. Sorry bout that, it's just a pet peeve of mine! :-)
Seems like you're talking about 2 different things here. To be "civically minded" is to contribute to the community by sponsoring various events or contributing to charities. That is entirely a personal choice, but most businesses do those things because it is good PR and because they also want to give back to the community that has supported them. But again, it's a personal choice and completely voluntary. No one is trying to pass laws to make you pay more than what you owe in taxes. No one is trying to legally require you to support your community outside of the taxes you pay.
It also sounds to me like you are a small business owner, which is a different thing altogether than being a hedge fund manager or a private-equity guy. Somehow I doubt that you are trying to hide money in the Cayman Islands or in a Swiss bank account.
Opoib,
ReplyDelete"It's small-minded of you to worry about taxes," Mitt Romney
Don't you think we all have that responsibility?
ReplyDeleteYes, including the 40% that don't pay taxes.
Anon 12:30 said:
ReplyDelete"What you amke is not only dependent on how hard you work, it also depends of the value of the work you do. This is called the free market. many of you are emotionally unable to understand it."
Yes, I've often wondered what it says about our society's values that someone like Romney, who had a career not actually starting any businesses but rather working in private equity (a field that basically involves buying businesses and then making as much money as possible off them, whether it means building them up or tearing them down), earns millions, while police, firefighters, educators, and many others who work long hours and contribute greatly to our society make relatively little.
I have a friend who has been teaching in the public schools for over 20 years and has won major teaching awards. She gives her all for her kids, is amazing at what she does, spends her summers doing professional development, and earns a salary in the mid 40,000 range. Does that reflect the "value" of her work? Or does it reflect market forces and political decisions? Because those aren't the same thing and if you think they are, then you aren't morally and ethically prepared to understand a lot of things.
BrotherDoc said this
ReplyDelete"Well, Anon, what most of us on this site want from the rich is a sense of civic responsibility"
What does this mean is my question?It is a very flowery and well sounding phrase i will say that, but does it mean that we tax business in to paying more and then call it civic responsibilty? Or is it choice a business makes to do something in the name of "PR" ? PR is just a nice way to say we did this as advertising in my book.
No one will answer me what that means? As a capitalist who hopes to franchise my business some day, and be as wealthy as possible from the result of my hard work at what point of earnings/success will i be taxed in to civic responsibility?
BettyWhite. The answer to all your questions is yes. I use the same services paid for by my taxes as you.
ReplyDeleteI also risk everything i own every day to get up and go to work in the hope of making a profit on my own.
If my business fails i loose my home, my car, my property, everything i have is at risk daily.
That is a big difference between being in business for ones self building a company and being an employee.
If i work for someone else and the company fails i get unemployment and government help to get on my feet again.
I do not loose everything i own to the investment of hard work to build something better for myself and family.
You and i have the same access to taxed payer funded items like roads and police. But I asked at what point will i earn enough to have to be civicly responsible/forced to pay 1 penny more then legally required by threat of imprisonment to the government?
Nice use of the Presidents speech talking points there by the way :)
Anon 12:30 you say "who had a career not actually starting any businesses but rather working in private equity (a field that basically involves buying businesses and then making as much money as possible off them, whether it means building them up or tearing them down),"
ReplyDeleteShould an equity firm who makes money for its share holders many of which could be you or I, if you have an IRA or any investments that are diversified including pensions or retirement accounts try to any less then as much as possible ?
It always annoys me to see people say "they made as much as possible off this or that". Will you go to work for less then as much as possible of your salary?
Do you not want as much of a return on your investments as possible?
Do you not want to get as much as possible out of any investment or effort you put forth ?
"You and i have the same access to taxed payer funded items like roads and police. But I asked at what point will i earn enough to have to be civicly responsible/forced to pay 1 penny more then legally required by threat of imprisonment to the government?"
ReplyDeleteAnd people have answered you. No one is going to FORCE you to be civically minded. It's up to you.
"Don't you think we all have that responsibility?
ReplyDeleteYes, including the 40% that don't pay taxes."
There you go again, Anonymous. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. There aren't 40% of the country who don't pay taxes. They may not pay federal income taxes, but they pay taxes! Every time they buy a gallon of gas, they pay federal and state taxes. If they purchase anything in NC, the pay sales taxes. They pay property taxes and fees and FICA taxes if they have a full OR part-time job. So, please stop the false talking point that 40% of the population doesn't pay taxes.
Besides, I thought conservatives hated taxes and always wanted to cut taxes. You should be happy that some people aren't paying federal income tax! Or, are YOU a hypocrite as well? I guess it's the "wrong" people who aren't paying income tax.
Opoib, you missed the point of what I was saying about private equity. I never said it was wrong, or that they shouldn't be maximizing investment. However, another poster on here tied income to "value", asserting that people who did work that had more value were paid accordingly. I simply wanted to contest that. Market forces and societal structures (among other things) determine what people make, but I don't think anyone can honestly make the argument that people get paid according to the *value* of the work they do. Just look at Paris Hilton or any of the people from the Jersey Shore (Snooki, etc.) I know they all make more than I do, and probably more than you, too. Does that mean your 80 hour weeks spent building your business are less valuable than their idiotic TV shenanigans? "Value" is not the right word (or concept) to use here.
ReplyDeleteThat was my point, no more no less. You read a lot into it that wasn't there.
"Nice use of the Presidents speech talking points there by the way :)"
ReplyDeleteI wasn't using talking points. I happen to believe in what I wrote. So, you, big capitalist who works 80 hours a week, you are totally responsible for the success of your business? You don't give any credit to the employees you've had? You don't think that having public roads and an educated workforce have helped you to succeed? All the credit belongs to you, right?
Like I said, the rich don't want to pay taxes, just give exaggerated excuses.
ReplyDeleteBetty. I wonder what the Bill Gates would say the answer is to that, or Steve Jobs.
ReplyDeleteThey have had hundreds of thousands of employees between them. Yet the success of Microsoft and Apple is almost certainly based on the vision and hard work of its founders.
If the employees were more valuable to the companies success then the founder then they would take the risk of running a new company to compete with their employers.
My employees are as valuable to my company as i allow them to be. I hire them based on their skills at interviewing and testing.
I decide if they stay or go and I train them if the need is there. They are welcome to risk everything they have to be my competitor an some have.
So far none of them have put me out of business. Does that make me a bad guy ? Does that make them more responsible for my companies success then I am ?
If you left your employer tomorrow would they have to go out of business with out you? If the answer is yes then you are the most important one there if no then they owe you nothing but your salary.
You did not make the company successful you may contribute but that's what your paid for.
Opoib said: "I wonder what the Bill Gates would say the answer is to that, or Steve Jobs.
ReplyDeleteThey have had hundreds of thousands of employees between them. Yet the success of Microsoft and Apple is almost certainly based on the vision and hard work of its founders.
If the employees were more valuable to the companies success then the founder then they would take the risk of running a new company to compete with their employers."
See, I think this is not entirely true, and it goes back to the original discussion of Ayn Rand because this is something she got wrong, too.
First of all, let me say that we absolutely need visionaries and leaders like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and Sergey Brin. But anyone who seriously studies how businesses are structured, especially large businesses like Apple or Microsoft, knows that talented and hardworking employees are the cornerstone of these companies. They were originally built on the vision of the founders, but at this point their well-educated workforce is what's more important to their success. In fact the examples you gave are really interesting because Steve Jobs has passed away and Bill Gates no longer has an active leadership role at Microsoft. And consider all of the thousands (millions?) of companies no longer run by their founders - they're obviously running on something more than that initial "vision". Very often great ideas within these companies come from collaboration; they are not all generated by one single leader. And there are hundreds of examples of CEOs and other leaders who have not done a particularly good job leading their companies and still get enormous salaries and a golden parachute when they leave. In fact, I think it's fair to say that executive compensation in the U.S. is no longer based primarily on merit.
Rand and many of those who subscribe to her philosophy put visionaries like Jobs or Gates on an extremely high pedestal. And again, don't misunderstand me, I also think innovators and leaders are extremely important. But we're not all visionaries and not all of us want to be leaders, and that's a good thing, because we don't need a society full of people like Steve Jobs.
Visionaries quite often need legions of talented employees to realize their vision, and if everyone was just doing their own thing instead we wouldn't get anywhere. And good employees are absolutely essential to good business - it's really not okay to discount them as if they're just replaceable cogs in a big machine. There are tons of books out there on Industrial and Organizational Psychology that explain this better and in much greater detail than I can. But we shouldn't fall in the Randian trap of thinking only a few select people in this world really matter. That's both mistaken and potentially dangerous.
Opoib- Everyone needs help from others. We rely on the kindness of others when we are children and when we are old. Any person who has attended any public school system has done so at other's expense. Any person who has driven on the public highway system has done so at other's expense. Anyone who is not dead from infections such as smallpox, yellow fever, malaria, plague, even influenza, is alive because poorly paid government funded scientists risked their lives and even died (Clara Maass) to keep you healthy enough to amass your fortune. If it weren't for those who lived and worked to make the world a better place, you and your family would be dead, starving as a poor peasant in slavery, or living in fear behind walled compounds and razor wire. Your arrogant sense of entitlement makes you a parasite.
ReplyDeleteBrushfire, This parasite would still like you to answer my question. At what point of success/earnings i am to be made to pay more then just the legal requirement in taxes as a civic responsibility?
ReplyDeleteThis parasite is also an employer who provides a good paying profession to his skilled employees. They are paid according to their value to the company.
It is true my company can not generate as much revenue with out it's employees but employees can be replaced much simpler then the ownership of the company. That's not a politically based statement that's a simple fact.
I do agree with you on this point " But we're not all visionaries and not all of us want to be leaders, and that's a good thing, because we don't need a society full of people like Steve Jobs."
Some people are happy to follow some to lead. Some are meant to be employed other risk everything to be employers.
Did OPOIB receive from the government any "special" consideration or did he just have the same opportunities everyone else received. Was his public school education denied to others? Are the roads he and his business depend upon not accessible to others? Was he the only one to receive public health benefits?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that he got the same thing everyone else in this country gets from the government. An equal opportunity to succeed. If he is successful, he pays a high percentage of his earnings to government in the form of income taxes.
Some here seem to think that everything he earns should be taken from him and distributed equally to all.
He earned it, he is taxed enough on it. Quit asking for handouts and get off your asses and do what he does! Start your own business and work 80 hour weeks and then come back and tell us how you want to continue doing that so that you can support others who are capable of working but would rather live off OPOIB's efforts and those of others like him.
"The only way to eat your vegetables is to eat your vegetables. Just as the only way to build a strong country is to pay your taxes and spend the money for the benefit of all.
ReplyDeleteBut there are always people who'll tell you otherwise. Pay close attention to the elections this year. Please." Robert Dobbs
"My employees are as valuable to my company as i allow them to be. I hire them based on their skills at interviewing and testing."
ReplyDeleteWow....I don't think I'd like to work for you at all, if you have no more respect for your employees than that. I certainly hope you have an employee who edits your documents a little more closely that you seem to edit your posts.
"If you left your employer tomorrow would they have to go out of business with out you?"
Let's turn that one around: if you went to work on Monday and all your employees were gone, how would you get through the day?
You all can mouth talking points all you want, but if it requires that the rich pay more taxes to be civilly reproducible, then it requires that the 40% that now pay no taxes would have to pay some to be civilly responsible. There is no way around this fact.
ReplyDeleteYou all brought it up. You are going to have to live with the double standard you are proposing.
From today's NY Times:
ReplyDelete"Thanks to a decades-long safety net, we have forgotten the trials of living without it. This is why, the historian Tony Judt argued, it’s easy for some to speak fondly of a world without government: we can’t fully imagine or recall what it’s like. We can’t really appreciate the horrors Upton Sinclair witnessed in the Chicago slaughterhouses before regulation, or the burden of living without Social Security and Medicare to look forward to. Thus, we can entertain nostalgia for a time when everyone pulled his own weight, bore his own risk, and was the master of his destiny. That time was a myth. But the notion of self-reliance is also a fallacy."
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/deluded-individualism/
It's like the parents who don't vaccinate their kids. They have never had to live in a world where polio, measles, and other diseases sickened, maimed and even killed young children and so they are blind to the dangers of not vaccinating. Too many also forget that for most of man's existence our lives were "nasty, brutish, and short" and seem to want a return to those bad old days.
OPOIB, do you mind sharing with us the type of business you are in?
ReplyDeleteDem12, Don't you think that his employees are able to decide for themselves whether working for him is a good idea or not? I can assure you that many of the unemployed or underemployed people I know would be glad to have full time employment. He, and other business owners who put their own money at risk deserve a little credit!
Dem12 if i came in tomorrow like it did today to work, and tomorrow i had no employees the answer is simple.
ReplyDeleteI would immediately put an ad in the papers and online and with recruiters like monster.com and so on for new ones.
In the mean time i would call a temp agency and have their positions filled by the end of the day until i found permanent replacements.
That's how business works. It happens all the time unions just call it a strike.
In the real world my customers would still want their products and services regardless of if my employees all quit at once or not.
Do you really also think that a successful business does not keep a file of people looking to work for them that has applied previously they would start calling applicants from?
You bring up the mass quit threat. If you and your coworkers quit on Monday, do you think your employer would go out of business do to bankruptcy from your collective actions or would they absorb the temporary set back and replace you and your coworkers and move on?
That is not being mean or cold it is a fact of life that that's how the world works.
I appreciate my employees pay them well and create a good work environment for them. They are a cost of doing business.
I can not do all the work my self that my company does so i hire people to do it for me, for less then i charge the customer.
What is wrong with that principal. Do you think Jobs, Gates, or Brinn, invites all of the employees to sunday dinner every week?
They are employees not family not close friends, not even acquaintances in most cases in large companies.
My grammar and spelling may not be perfect, but they do not affect my income earning potential fortunately in my profession.
I did not know they were being graded by you to determine if a fact was a fact regardless of how it is worded or spelled.
anon...you should point out that the 40% you refer to are 40% of WAGE EARNERS.
ReplyDeleteThere are some who, either through ignorance or an attempt to mislead, that would have you believe that it includes everyone in the population - children, unemployed, retired, etc...
emth1w 25
Anon 9:48 i would like to say the name of my company but i want customers from all sides liberal, conservative, non decided, or just plain I want as little government in my life as possible as i consider my self.
ReplyDeleteI am a firm believer of keeping politics and religion out of my business.
If you support chik-fil-a and their donating to hate groups your still welcome to spend money in my business.
If you do not buy hate sandwiches i will still take your money for my companies services.
Anon 9:43 you post this " But the notion of self-reliance is also a fallacy."
ReplyDeleteIf you are not reliable for your self who is ?
Is it my responsibility to take care of you?
Is it you neighbors?
Is it your family's?
Who is reliable for those who do not want to accept responsibility for themselves ?
If i decide to not work any longer and just stay home, is it your responsibility to pay more in taxes to support me as a civic duty ?
OPOIB, I wasn't asking the name of your company - I was just curious as to the type of company it might be. Restaurant, Retail, Construction trades, whatever....it's really none of my business anyhow.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you - in todays world it doesn't pay to tie your company to a political party or philosophy. You aren't likely to help your business that way!
"Don't you think that his employees are able to decide for themselves whether working for him is a good idea or not?"
ReplyDeleteOf course. I never said anything about his/her employees. I just said that I didn't think I'd want to work there. You folks are attributing a lot of things to me that I never said.
Opoib, if I didn't show up for work, my employer wouldn't go bankrupt. My employer CAN'T go bankrupt. We're not a profit-making entity. It would also take longer than a day to replace me. My job is specialized and requires a Master's Degree, so it's not likely that many people at a temp agency could step into it.
Opoib said:
ReplyDelete"Anon 9:43 you post this " But the notion of self-reliance is also a fallacy."
If you are not reliable for your self who is ?
Is it my responsibility to take care of you?
Is it you neighbors?
Is it your family's?
Who is reliable for those who do not want to accept responsibility for themselves ?
If i decide to not work any longer and just stay home, is it your responsibility to pay more in taxes to support me as a civic duty ?"
I consider my views on social welfare pretty moderate. I am not in favor of unrestricted handouts and I think people able to work need to be either working or actively looking for work. I'm also in favor, on some level, of drug testing for welfare recipients (I just worry about the details of implementation).
But where do we draw the line for self-reliance? Should a 6 year old be self-reliant? What about a 90 year old with limited mobility? Should a paraplegic be expected to get by with no help from anyone, or someone with severe mental disabilities?
On a more general level, self-reliance and independence are important aspects of humanity, but so are mutual aid and interdependence. This goes back to human prehistory when we lived and hunted and worked in groups, and food sharing was absolutely essential to our continued existence as a species. Obviously we're no longer hunter-gatherers but we are still social animals and we still depend on each other to some extent. I think it's fair to say that yes, generally families are expected to take care of each other, and so are communities. We all have responsibilities as members of these families and communities, and when someone doesn't put forth their fair share it strikes other people as unjust. That is why it upsets many people, me included, to know that uber-wealthy people like Mitt Romney pay taxes at a much lower rate than those of us in the middle class. I said this before and I'll repeat it here:
When someone like Romney pays a lower tax rate than me, when he makes something like 300 times as much money as I do, under what system of taxes or morals or economics is that okay?
I'm not trying to pull anyone down and I'm not resentful of others' success. I am successful myself and happy with what I've achieved in life. I'm proud of that, but I'd never presume to discount the role that other people have had in helping me get where I am, whether it's my family, or good teachers, or that random guy who helped me after my car had broken down on the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere in Virginia (that was before cell phones). People who subscribe to Rand's philosophy seem to see themselves as entirely self-made, larger than life, better than the "little people". That's myopic and misguided.
Why can't a non profit go bankrupt?
ReplyDeleteStockton Ca and San Bernadino recently joined the lengthening list of cites/municipalities going bankrupt. Aren't they non profit as well? Just because they are a non profit doesn't mean that they can't incur debt greater than their ability to repay it!
And, the unemployment lines are full of people with masters degrees. I bet your company will survive without you.
Dem12, don't fool your self there are thousands of unemployed master degree holders out there.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are many specialized temp agencies that for a price can fill almost any position.
I know of ones that can fill all of the medical fields including specified fields of physicians. I know of one that can fill any I.T. position in seconds right up to top level programmers or fiber optic techs.
If there is a need some company will be there to fill it that's the great part of a free market economy.
My work is very technical and i can find a replacement temp in no time at all, i might have to pay a premium for that person untill i fill the position permanently but few positions in this economy can not be filled quickly.
Anon 7:52 The reason Romney pays a lower rate then you is that he is taxed on capitol gains.
ReplyDeleteThat is his main source of income.As it is for George Soros who also pays a lower rate then you or i.
The law is set to encourage investing by having a lower rate on capitol gains.
If that's not fair then the law needs to be changed not penalizing people who profit from hard work.
I am not big Romney fan or Obama fan for that matter. But I would bet my last nickle that Obamas tax accountants work just as hard as Romneys to make sure he pays as little as possible on his millions in income from his books.
I don't work for a non-profit "company." I work for a state agency.
ReplyDeletedem12, it must be nice to be the only person in the state who can not be replaced.
ReplyDeleteI am not nearly that important. There are others just as or if not even more qualified that can do mine.
I never said that I couldn't be replaced. Here's my exact quote: "It would also take longer than a day to replace me." Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteYou're assuming they would replace you? They might just abolish the "job".
ReplyDeleteI'm not assuming anything. You folks need to write a book on putting words in people's mouths. Jeez.
ReplyDelete