• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

Are you willing to pay higher taxes, and if so, for what?

  • Yes, across the board.

    Votes: 10 15.4%

  • Yes, for infrastructure.

    Votes: 27 41.5%

  • Yes, for education. (K-12)

    Votes: 18 27.7%

  • Yes, for job creation.

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • Yes, for social programs.

    Votes: 15 23.1%

  • Yes, for medical care.

    Votes: 21 32.3%

  • Yes, for the environment.

    Votes: 16 24.6%

  • Yes, but... not for some particular programs (please elaborate).

    Votes: 8 12.3%

  • No. None. Not for anything at all.

    Votes: 23 35.4%

  • Undecided. Convince me either way.

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Total voters
    65
Redress said:
Moderator's Warning:
Let us not comment on other members and how well you think they perform their jobs
Click to expand...

So I can not longer say you suck as a moderator? :mrgreen: j/k
 
Thunder said:
wages are not tied into or related to profit achieved. this is indeed a problem..and its unfair.
Click to expand...
Nor should they be. Skill level and ease/difficulty of replacement should play a larger part in determining wages. Not to mention that business owners (the smaller the business, the more this applies) are literally risking total and complete financial ruin. If the business fails, the lowest employee goes out and finds another job. The owner is completely ruined. The owner should take more in profit if the business does well simply because they put more of their total financial well-being on the line. They probably also put in way more hours and effort, too.
 
radcen said:
Nor should they be. Skill level and ease/difficulty of replacement should play a larger part in determining wages. Not to mention that business owners (the smaller the business, the more this applies) are literally risking total and complete financial ruin. If the business fails, the lowest employee goes out and finds another job. The owner is completely ruined. The owner should take more in profit if the business does well simply because they put more of their total financial well-being on the line. They probably also put in way more hours and effort, too.
Click to expand...

yes, business-owners have invested time and money into their company. but that doesn't change the fact that its the labor of the workers who are making the products or services that earn the money that accounts for the profits.

a fairer system of dividing profits between owners & workers, should be devised.
 
Thunder said:
yes, business-owners have invested time and money into their company. but that doesn't change the fact that its the labor of the workers who are making the products or services that earn the money that accounts for the profits.

a fairer system of dividing profits between owners & workers, should be devised.
Click to expand...
And they do a straight trade of time for money. Deal done.

This would be a fairer system: Workers invest their own personal money so the risk is more equitably spread also. While we're at it, the workers can spend extra time at work and home, often for no direct pay or benefit whatsoever, to make sure the business is successful.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
...While we're at it, the workers can spend extra time at work and the office, often for no direct pay or benefit whatsoever, to make sure the business is successful.
Click to expand...

I know of many workers who stay at work late, without any extra compensation. Why? Cause they respect their work.
 
Thunder said:
I know of many workers who stay at work late, without any extra compensation. Why? Cause they respect their work.
Click to expand...
I've known some, too. They're a small percentage. Very small. This would qualify as what is know as "an exception to the rule", and not pervasive enough to sway the conversation one way or another.

Besides, your posts thus far have suggested that you believe that ALL employees should share in the profits equally, whether or not their risk and/or effort is equal.

ETA: It is also noted that you continually edit out some of my points in your responses. Must be too inconvenient.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
...Besides, your posts thus far have suggested that you believe that ALL employees should share in the profits equally, whether or not their risk and/or effort is equal....
Click to expand...

no, I just want a country that is a bit more fair. that's all.
 
kamikaze483 said:
It is amazing how irrational people can be. To assume that management jobs and company ownership do not entail a tremendous amount of work and dedication is illogical, ignorant- and dishonest. Because I don't think even YOU believe that.

Just for one example: A road contracting company secures a multi-million dollar parking lot paving project. The project allows (or forces, depending on whether or not you think corporations are evil and greedy) to create an additional 100 jobs for a period of 18 months. While the management stays in the office, the laborers work resurfacing the parking lots. What is the management doing in the office? Working on securing more contracts so that there is continued profitability for the company AND so they have somewhere to place those 100 workers after the first project is completed.

People, obviouly, have different skills and different levels of skill. Just because some work in the office, and some do the physical labor doesn't make either parasitic. Matter of fact, I would argue that productivity of the management has more overall impact than the laborers- but the relationship is clearly symbiotic.
Click to expand...

Thunder said:
yes, business-owners have invested time and money into their company. but that doesn't change the fact that its the labor of the workers who are making the products or services that earn the money that accounts for the profits.

a fairer system of dividing profits between owners & workers, should be devised.
Click to expand...

A fair system could be if you don't want to do the job for the owner, don't work there. If the owner is having a hard time getting or keeping employees, pay them more or treat them better. But, if an owner wants to run his business without employees, he should be able to do it. And, an employee should be able to start his own business and compete in the marketplace.

There are no guarantees as to what was "the correct decision". You might start a business and lose everything. You might choose to work for someone and never make much money - or lose your job. There is no "fair" way of dividing profits except paying enough to keep someone the company needs, and demanding enough as an employee to be paid what you're worth compared to those who are willing to replace you.
 
Folks, I'm not talking about mom & pop stores.

I am talking about Walmart, BJs, Pathmark, Old Navy, etc etc. MASSIVE franchises that make billions in profits.
 
Thunder said:
no, I just want a country that is a bit more fair. that's all.
Click to expand...
If you truly want 'fair', and not solely the the good side of fair, then you want ALL aspects shared equally. Financial risk, investment of time, everything. Literally. With all due respect, I don't think you really want fair, you want to share in the benefits without having to share in the commitment.
 
Thunder said:
Folks, I'm not talking about mom & pop stores.

I am talking about Walmart, BJs, Pathmark, Old Navy, etc etc. MASSIVE franchises that make billions in profits.
Click to expand...
Same concepts still apply. They still invest billions in buildings and construction, and while the leaders probably have more and better vacations, they also spend countless 15+ hours days working.
 
radcen said:
...With all due respect, I don't think you really want fair, you want to share in the benefits without having to share in the commitment.
Click to expand...

wrong. I simply want wealthy CEOs to share profits a little more with the folks making the stuff that earns the profits.
 
Thunder said:
your conclusion is ignorant & baseless. its just biased opinion.
Click to expand...
My conclusion is opinion, but it is hardly ignorant nor baseless.

You have repeatedly and utterly failed to address the equality of risk factor, as just one example.
 
radcen said:
My conclusion is opinion, but it is hardly ignorant nor baseless.

You have repeatedly and utterly failed to address the equality of risk factor, as just one example.
Click to expand...

you developed your opinion of my views long before that issue arose.
 
Thunder said:
wrong. I simply want wealthy CEOs to share profits a little more with the folks making the stuff that earns the profits.
Click to expand...
Buy the stock and stop acting like a mooch. I never hear labor thugs saying they will more than happy to put some skin in the game and take salary and benefit cuts when the earnings drop, all they want is the upside...screw them. Gee, I would love to have perpetual options with every company ... fortunately I learned at a young age Santa doesn't exist so I am not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.
 
Thunder said:
its YOUR point.

not mine.
Click to expand...
Yes. It is my point. That usually happens in debates, btw, new points get introduced into the discussion from time to time.

I... correctly, it seems... pointed out a flaw in your reasoning that an average employee deserves, and should get, equal compensation. You are under no obligation to address it, just know that failure to address it does not bolster your position one bit. Unless you can address my point, and articulate *why* risk should not be shared as well if profits are shared, then the only conclusion left is that you're not interested in true equality at all. You simply want to share in all the good stuff , and not any of the bad stuff.
 
radcen said:
... Unless you can address my point, and articulate *why* risk should not be shared as well if profits are shared, then the only conclusion left is that you're not interested in true equality at all. You simply want to share in all the good stuff , and not any of the bad stuff.
Click to expand...

what "risk" does the CEO share?

they often get MASSIVE sign-on bonuses, which are of course completely unrelated to any labor or profits they have earned for the company. they basically get paid for having a pulse.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
what "risk" does the CEO share?

they often get MASSIVE sign-on bonuses, which are of course completely unrelated to any labor or profits they have earned for the company. they basically get paid for having a pulse.
Click to expand...
"Sign on" bonuses I am fine with. Guaranteed "golden parachutes", which you did not mention but are similar, I suspect you would have a problem with... and on that particular point I would agree with you. You are still citing exceptions to the rule and avoiding the basic question regarding sharing risk, though.

ETA: Generally, once a person arrives at the CEO level, they have proven themselves at least somewhat worthy and have already run the gauntlet of risk in their earlier years. The company itself still runs a risk that the new CEO actually will be worthy.
 
Last edited:
Thunder said:
what "risk" does the CEO share?

they often get MASSIVE sign-on bonuses, which are of course completely unrelated to any labor or profits they have earned for the company. they basically get paid for having a pulse.
Click to expand...

They get paid to perform. i.e. make the company way more money than they get paid.

The contracts they sign typically state that if they fail to perform to a certain standard, they have to give that money back to the company.

They are paid for a hell of a lot more than just having a pulse.
 
apdst said:
They get paid to perform. i.e. make the company way more money than they get paid.

The contracts they sign typically state that if they fail to perform to a certain standard, they have to give that money back to the company.....
Click to expand...

tell that to AIG, Citicorp, and Bank of America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom