I personally believe this war on the wealthy mentality would do more harm than good. Problem is that "wealthy" is defined as those making $250k+ annually. Unfortunately 250k is not all that much when taking into consideration, say, a doctor paying $3000 a month on student loans, $1,000 a month in malpractice insurance (and this is cheap insurance), and also paying the additional income tax.

There is also a myth about wealthy individuals only paying 15% of their income on taxes. This is actually just dividends. If we raise this, we raise taxes average folks pay on selling their houses for a profit, or 401k (or the majority of retirement plans by that matter), which hurts the middle class.

Raising minimum wage, again, hurts the middle class despite helping the poor. I personally don't believe minimum wage should be a living wage. It's supposed to be for those jobs you get in high school or early college years for a little extra spending cash.

That being said, IF ANY cap is placed on administrative salaries, it should be a percentage not a limit, therefore still encouraging innovation and advancement. Maybe no one in a company should be making more than 75 times what the lowest paid employee makes. Or better yet, start small. For instance, ceo's/administrative personnel cannot get a raise unless everyone in the company gets the same percentage pay raise. But maybe this regulation is not the answer.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial to lower American corporate tax rates to roughly 25%, and slap an import tax on products coming in from overseas. Instead of encouraging businesses to bring work elsewhere we should focus on getting those middle income producing jobs back over here. Maybe if fewer people were making minimum wage, the income gap would even itself out a bit.

Oh, well, then...if it's a War of the Memes that will decide who's *right*...

^^^^^^^^^^^
Now this thread could find itself in the joke section.

I'll take that as a win in this round for we "idiot" "libtard" "druggies", in the Battle of the Memes, then.

We won! Woot! now what did we win exactly?

Bragging rights to "Hey...I Posted A Meme That Was So Singularly Awesome It Brought An End to the Meme War...Temporarily, Anyway...and My Opponent Took His Memes and Went Home".


Important schtuff, here...arguing on the internet, to decide who's *right* and who's not quite *right*,


yanno?

From The Hill: Arizona GOP official resigns after comments on forced sterilization

So you are saying that female, minorities, gays, etc can't excel in life without the government forcing it? I don't own a business, but if a person was making me money I wouldn't care their ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference.

This a million times. Even when people try to talk about the 1% it isn't even the 1% getting tax breaks etc. It is more like the .001%. Even then it is often investment returns which unrealized gains are not taxed at all and people just don't understand investing.

No I was talking about the 1% not the .01% or the 1% of the 1%. yes I do realize that the when people say wealth they mean the money they can take in. I really meant their income as in paycheck, because that what we can touch and effect in such a way as to redistribute the wealth. If you want to get into a debate on taxing the potential of investments I'm all for it. I just don't think it's viable, nor will it ever happen.

Keep in mind I am not advocating to redistribute wealth because the rich deserve to not have their money. I am suggesting that we do this because our government has an obligation to look after the common wealth. This in my view includes the poor and middle class. As the capitalistic system is failing to assist, it then becomes the governments job to step in. Charities are nice and all but all they do is help people feel good and don't fix problems. It's like sticking a band-aid on a bone-fracture that's sticking out of the skin.

As for the minimum wage. yes it does exactly what you say it does, but that is the immediate effect. in the long run it actually helps the middle class. The problem is that no matter how you spin it just raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. and that's the biggest issue. Oh and I never said it would be a fixed rate. It should have never been a fixed rate to begin with.

The minimum wage needs to be relative to the cost of living in an area defined by well the census. say 85% of that cost of living. Did you know that 20.5 million jobs in the us were of approximately minimum wage jobs (as in 10 dollars per hour and below with commission added)? That's approximately 14.5% of the total amount of jobs that is in this country. While you do have a point that minimum wage jobs are meant as a supplement kind of work, that is not how it's being used at all. So while you may believe that, reality tells us that the minimum wage should be a bar that is determined by cost of living.


Honestly, this is why I figured that raising the minimum wage needs to be done in tandem with something else that redistributes the wealth.

yeah,the Soviets had a HUGE SUCCESS with Re-Distribution!

Wow! Coveting another person's wealth, eh? How Socialist that is.

hundreds of years on this land say otherwise,,, YOU might not care,, but there are far too many who just might to take away the protections of historically discriminated against groups


assistance is an OPTION it is not forced, it has a bare maximum that can be paid out to any one individual and unlike a FORCED medical procedure or drug, it has no physical side effects

you cant govern peoples bodies,, bottom line,,,,

its not coveting wealth, its reviewing equitability,,,,and looking at why such a small percentage can see such a HUGE gain in income while the majority are losing,,,,,without believing that that minority is just THAT Much more 'productive' and 'hard working'

Malarkey!
It's Plain Old Stealing!
Theft through Government!

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

Alexis de Tocqueville

you all in particular,and also the World at Large are living on borrowed time!

The U.S. government dictates which drugs that you are allowed to use.



It is, too, coveting wealth, because there is a difference between people not having the necessities of life and people having less $$$ than what other people have. The latter is what is driving the call to "spread the wealth".

So basically the system's screwed. We're screwed! So frak it all I'm just going to eat worms!

Bleeep No! That's like saying life isn't worth living because were all gonna die someday! Yeah at some point our government may fall like a house of cards, but so far we're the longest living one that still lives. If you say that Vatican is a form of government then you don't know what one is.

I am actually proud of the fact that our government is and has become an example on how things should be run, and there is no way in hell any anarchist will tell me otherwise. Our system has one thing that makes it special. The laws can be rewritten. It may take some time. but we can do it. So there is no point in moping about how things could have been or what will eventually come of us, when we can change it here and now.

Gee I thought our founding fathers liberated this country on three founding truths "Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. So how is the poor not having the ability to live an example of this?

By definition to covet:
1)to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others.

2)to wish for, especially eagerly.

Either you implying that redistribution of wealth is without regard to the rights of others, or you are implying that those who are suggesting that we redistribute wealth want the wealth for them selves. Either way your argument is false, and therefore unsound and invalid.

P.S. Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar.