Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 252

Thread: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-09 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    829

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    A union doesn't need the government for them to work. Strikes, boycotts, closed shop action, it all doesn't require the government.
    Yes it does. Without government violence a company can just fire / kick the people it doesn't want off its property, which is their natural right as property owners, and hire people who are willing to work for a fair wage, which is objectively determined by supply and demand.

    You can't boycott companies that would pay a market wage, because that's pretty much all the companies out there (with the possible exception of some idealistic mom'n'pop businesses up in Vermont somewhere, and that business philosophy just won't scale to meet the demand). The economic reality is that most people in the world just don't want to pay substantially more for their goods just to support the lucky workers who're getting above their market wage while other workers who'd be willing to offer a greater value go unemployed. That's simply unfair.

  2. #32
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    Yes it does. Without government violence a company can just fire / kick the people it doesn't want off its property, which is their natural right as property owners, and hire people who are willing to work for a fair wage, which is objectively determined by supply and demand.

    You can't boycott companies that would pay a market wage, because that's pretty much all the companies out there (with the possible exception of some idealistic mom'n'pop businesses up in Vermont somewhere, and that business philosophy just won't scale to meet the demand). The economic reality is that most people in the world just don't want to pay substantially more for their goods just to support the lucky workers who're getting above their market wage while other workers who'd be willing to offer a greater value go unemployed. That's simply unfair.
    You are forgetting what the union can do when they have membership of most of the people in a certain industry. Then they can make demands.

    What if everyone who was trained in air traffic control went on strike. Then the union could make any demands it wanted.

    However, that can only happen if the air companies get their workers so mad that they all agree to a strike. So even if a suscesful strike is rare, it can still happen without government intervention.

    Am I wrong?

  3. #33
    Professor
    Baralis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    MO
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:53 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,394
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Why not? I don't want the hassle of dealing with a union, so to save money I'll avoid hiring people in a union. Of course, if they all secretly join a union and spring it on me all at once, then I'm in a pretty tough position. There's no way that I'm going to fire my entire workforce. If they go on strike, that decision gets a little easier though.
    Having been a business owner myself I can say with absolute certainty that if my entire workforce were to unionize, I would either fire my entire workforce or close shop. I will not be bullied by any organisation even if it cuts my own throat.

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-09 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    829

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    You are forgetting what the union can do when they have membership of most of the people in a certain industry. Then they can make demands.
    That's not very likely to happen. The most unionized industries tend to be the ones with the lowest barrier to entry. I've never heard of a C Programmers' union - unless you're talking about shared bits.

    Companies will simply avoid hiring employees who are suspected of having union ties. Those jobs should go to the people willing to offer the best value for the company, and there are plenty of people in India and Africa who deserve a chance to lift themselves out of poverty.


    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    What if everyone who was trained in air traffic control went on strike. Then the union could make any demands it wanted.
    That would be terrible, which is why unionization should be discouraged, which would have been very easy to do if it wasn't for demagogue politicians backing unions up with the guns of the state.

    In a free society, going on strike is career suicide. You'd be fired immediately, blacklisted, and no one in their right mind would ever hire you again!


    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    However, that can only happen if the air companies get their workers so mad that they all agree to a strike. So even if a suscesful strike is rare, it can still happen without government intervention.
    Government intervention is all over the place when it comes to hiring or firing workers, and even more so in Europe than in the USA. Without the government employment would be a lot more market-driven, and thus a lot more rational, flexible, and efficient. Your reputation is your greatest asset - trying to steal unearned benefits (which is what unions are all about) would be a big faux pas.

  5. #35
    Advisor Don't Tase Me Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-22-09 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    446

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    What if everyone who was trained in air traffic control went on strike. Then the union could make any demands it wanted
    They already tried this. It was an epic fail for the union.

    Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  6. #36
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    That's not very likely to happen. The most unionized industries tend to be the ones with the lowest barrier to entry. I've never heard of a C Programmers' union - unless you're talking about shared bits.

    Companies will simply avoid hiring employees who are suspected of having union ties. Those jobs should go to the people willing to offer the best value for the company, and there are plenty of people in India and Africa who deserve a chance to lift themselves out of poverty.




    That would be terrible, which is why unionization should be discouraged, which would have been very easy to do if it wasn't for demagogue politicians backing unions up with the guns of the state.

    In a free society, going on strike is career suicide. You'd be fired immediately, blacklisted, and no one in their right mind would ever hire you again!




    Government intervention is all over the place when it comes to hiring or firing workers, and even more so in Europe than in the USA. Without the government employment would be a lot more market-driven, and thus a lot more rational, flexible, and efficient. Your reputation is your greatest asset - trying to steal unearned benefits (which is what unions are all about) would be a big faux pas.
    If it is unskilled labour, then by all means it should go to India or China. It will even with unions because you can't unionize all of China, or anything outside of your country anyway. I support capitalism, foreign aid and globalization, so my top priority is other countrie's poor citizens.

    And with all of your talk about unions, it sounds like you want to make them illegal.

    I am just stating that natural strikes exist, and they can always exist without government intervention.

    If anything, the harm of unions is just because they have done all that they could, when now it should be left up to the open market. But unions have done alot of help in the past, and they therefore may have some use in the future.
    We shouldn't just allow blacklists for all people who simply join a union, especially if they don't strike. We need to think about the possible future benefits of unions, and basically by definition, we won't know what that is now.

  7. #37
    Educator nerv14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Seen
    02-07-11 @ 07:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    601

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    [QUOTE=Don't Tase Me Bro;1058071350]They already tried this. It was an epic fail for the union.

    The union apparently didn't have a large enough stake in the elligible worker pool, so they didn't deserve a raise.

    However, Reagan acted too harshly by first blacklisting the workers. (but luckily he resinded that, which some terms)

    I don't see how this relates to a union not being able to exist. If there is unemployed air traffic controllers then the wages should not raise for the people with jobs. That much is odvious, so this doesn't really mean that unions are inherently evil.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Lets see, as I guess it is the highlighted bits you disagree with.



    Basic maths shows this.

    3 people.

    Person 1 earns 10 dollars a year
    Person 2 earns 100 dollars a year
    Person 3 earns 10000 dollars a year.

    Flat tax system of say 20% since you yanks love low numbers.

    Person 1 pays 2 dollars in tax, leaving 8 dollars to live on
    Person 2 pays 20 dollars in tax, leaving 80 dollars to live on
    Person 3 pays 2000 dollars in tax, leaving 8000 dollars to live on.

    Which person would have a more "comfortable" life?
    I see no problem with this system as it is not person 3's fault or responsibility to create a lifestyle for his neighbors. And he is still paying exponential amounts of tax compared to his other 2 neighbors.

    In a proportional system it could be like this. 50 dollar deductible. First 1000 dollars is taxed by 10%, 1001 to 5000 is taxed 20% and anything over 5000 is taxed by 30%.

    Person 1 earns 10 dollars a year but since there is a 50 dollar a year deductible he will pay no tax. 10 dollars to live on.
    Person 2 earns 100 dollars a year, has a 50 dollar deductible leaving only the 50 dollars to be taxed by 10% which is a tax of 5 dollars. That gives 95 dollars to live on.
    Person 3 earns 10000 dollars a year, has a 50 dollar deductible. the 10000 dollars are taxed the following. The first 1000 by 10% which is 100 dollars, then next 4000 is taxed by 20% which is 800 dollars and the remaining income of 5000 dollars is taxed by 30% which is 1500 dollars. This is a grand total of 2350 dollars in tax (with the 50 dollar deductible.. even though it dont matter jack for this person). That will leave the person 7650 dollars to live off.. ohh poor rich people have less to live off.. boo hoo... will have to skip one weekly botox treatment.
    Oh the less rich people won't be getting entitlements from the hard working man who earned his fortune with his own sweat. Boo hoo. It's not his responsibility to elevate the standard of living of his neighbors. And he still pays more tax overall.

    Basically with the progressive tax, you are punishing a man for being financially successful. That stifles ambition and is the reason communism and socialism fail epically.

  9. #39
    Advisor Don't Tase Me Bro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-22-09 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    446

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by nerv14 View Post
    The union apparently didn't have a large enough stake in the elligible worker pool, so they didn't deserve a raise.

    However, Reagan acted too harshly by first blacklisting the workers. (but luckily he resinded that, which some terms)

    I don't see how this relates to a union not being able to exist. If there is unemployed air traffic controllers then the wages should not raise for the people with jobs. That much is odvious, so this doesn't really mean that unions are inherently evil.
    I never said the union was evil and I never said it relates to a union not being able to exist. You said that if the air traffic controllers went on strike they would get whatever they want. I showed you were wrong. It's that simple.

  10. #40
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,477
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: California Considers Flat Tax and Completely Eliminating Welfare

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post

    Basic maths shows this.

    3 people.

    Person 1 earns 10 dollars a year
    Person 2 earns 100 dollars a year
    Person 3 earns 10000 dollars a year.

    Flat tax system of say 20% since you yanks love low numbers.

    Person 1 pays 2 dollars in tax, leaving 8 dollars to live on
    Person 2 pays 20 dollars in tax, leaving 80 dollars to live on
    Person 3 pays 2000 dollars in tax, leaving 8000 dollars to live on.

    Which person would have a more "comfortable" life?
    Beautiful isn't it?

    Why take more money from the wealthy, run the dollar through the government meat grinder, and spit out a politically targeted quarter?

    Isn't it better for the wealth to be handled by those that have generated it... and used to create more jobs, goods and services, and with it more opportunity and higher paying jobs?

    Those that prefer to sit on the sofa and swill beer and watch TV shouldn't be profiting from those who are taking risk, and busting their asses.

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 06-09-09 at 08:51 AM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •