liberalism vs conservativism , left vs right, etc.

[Miserabilia]

Inspired by another post, but basicly there's something I want to discuss;

I think right/conservative thinking is more instictive, and in a way very logical; you want to take care of yourself and others close to you. You work and do something for society and as a reward you get money to exchange for your own choices. If you fail to work you fail to provide something for society and someone else has to provide for you for example.

Because in reality, nobody really cares about a distant group of people; the bigger the difference, whether it's money, culture, langauge, race, the less you care instinctively.

My question though; why bring this mindset into politics? Politics, which litearly has the purpose of providing for society as a whole and not you.
I find very conservative people extremely self centrered for bringing this mindset into politics and basicly saying; I'll do what it takes to make a good life for myself, you figure your own out.

I'm aware of the image of conservatives being traditional angry old people, but I really notive a large portion is also the 4chan-esque angry youths, who are smart and actualy have promising futures.
I just don't get it, I know pepole my age like this. I feel like it's this extreme expression of this edgy "I don't have compassion for other people!" attitude.
A girl I know literaly said survival of the fittest should be an element of society and that if someone fails to pay for their cancer treatment it's only logical for them to die.

Can't we atleast pretend to care for other people? Even if it goes against your every instinct, can't we atleast try to pretend we understand that making a sacrifice to pay for people in need isn't really any different than working?
You're helping society.
Yes you can work and help society that way, and hope the money somehow ends up in the right place like trickle down economics or you can actualy allow the state to have influence in a way that allows people actual oppertunity and quality of life.

Basicly my point is I udnerstand that both sides will always continue to exist; I just don't understand that in this age and day it's still such a major part of actual politics.

Sorry if this was poorly written, but please share your thoughts. On a side note, I'm not even that liberal/leftist; I'm a lot less liberal than a lot of people I know but I'm stil all for proper state healthcare for example, something that I can't even fathom the USA still doesn't have.

[Microcosm]

I think liberalism/leftism is better for the world as a whole. Essentially, conservatism is nothing more than societal stagnation.

The world should think forward and become more connected. That way, we can work together to make everyone happier and to innovate in new ways.

Conservatives suggest that we should be all nationalistic and only innovate for our own sake rather than for the sake of others or even for all mankind. Like you said, it is essentially very selfish politics.

[sqishy]

Inspired by another post, but basicly there's something I want to discuss;

I think right/conservative thinking is more instictive, and in a way very logical; you want to take care of yourself and others close to you. You work and do something for society and as a reward you get money to exchange for your own choices. If you fail to work you fail to provide something for society and someone else has to provide for you for example.

Because in reality, nobody really cares about a distant group of people; the bigger the difference, whether it's money, culture, langauge, race, the less you care instinctively.

My question though; why bring this mindset into politics? Politics, which litearly has the purpose of providing for society as a whole and not you.
I find very conservative people extremely self centrered for bringing this mindset into politics and basicly saying; I'll do what it takes to make a good life for myself, you figure your own out.

I'm aware of the image of conservatives being traditional angry old people, but I really notive a large portion is also the 4chan-esque angry youths, who are smart and actualy have promising futures.
I just don't get it, I know pepole my age like this. I feel like it's this extreme expression of this edgy "I don't have compassion for other people!" attitude.
A girl I know literaly said survival of the fittest should be an element of society and that if someone fails to pay for their cancer treatment it's only logical for them to die.

Can't we atleast pretend to care for other people? Even if it goes against your every instinct, can't we atleast try to pretend we understand that making a sacrifice to pay for people in need isn't really any different than working?
You're helping society.
Yes you can work and help society that way, and hope the money somehow ends up in the right place like trickle down economics or you can actualy allow the state to have influence in a way that allows people actual oppertunity and quality of life.

Basicly my point is I udnerstand that both sides will always continue to exist; I just don't understand that in this age and day it's still such a major part of actual politics.

Sorry if this was poorly written, but please share your thoughts. On a side note, I'm not even that liberal/leftist; I'm a lot less liberal than a lot of people I know but I'm stil all for proper state healthcare for example, something that I can't even fathom the USA still doesn't have.

There is so much involved in politics that officially/etc should not be there, which is certainly a factor in how much of a huge serious mess it can be. I agree with you totally here.

[phuckphace]

people act according to collective self-interest as well as individual, hence partisan politics.

collective self-interest is why the EBT crew votes Democrat (da chikn must flow) and is also why middle class whites are flocking to the Trump campaign.

I assumed from the beginning that collective self-interest is the main factor behind politics and that's why multiculturalism has been such a disaster for democracies everywhere. why have like 69 different factions who will split/gridlock your politics when you could just be totalitarian and monocultural instead?

[Sir Suomi]

It's ridiculous to generalize all right wing politics into a "fuck the poor" image. Simply because I don't feel the need to have to be weighed down by others without my own consent doesn't mean that I wish for those less fortunate than I to die. In fact, I think the idea that society should voluntarily choose to help those who are less fortunate is a step forward, while stealing from our pockets without our consent is a step backwards. I think the man who donates $10 out of his own pocket by his own will is better than the man who has $100 taken out of his payroll.

But hey, fuck individual choice man.

[phuckphace]

I think the man who donates $10 out of his own pocket by his own will is better than the man who has $100 taken out of his payroll.

But hey, fuck individual choice man.

you do realize that $100 payroll tax also goes to things other than welfare, right? of course we could both argue that the funds are being mishandled in some ways but that's beside the point. is the government supposed to raise revenue by setting up a dropbox with a sad eagle on it and plead for charitable donations too?

also, good luck finding anyone with money to donate after the free market roars to life, the corporations automate/outsource/offshore literally everything and the unemployment rate hits 80%. think of how scary that anarchy will be especially with racists like Ben Garrison everywhere

[Sir Suomi]

you do realize that $100 payroll tax also goes to things other than welfare, right?

You're misunderstanding my analogy. My point is that what's the point of helping others when you don't want to do it willingly? As harsh as it sounds, I could care less if I'm feeding children in Africa. What I concerned about is that now portions of the money I worked hard to earn is now being sent off to help others (That is what's left after the government dips it's hand in it to pay for the expenses) instead of me being able to use it to further my own life, the life of my lover, or the lives of my children. Why should I need to care about others when my own immediate family could use that money?

is the government supposed to raise revenue by setting up a dropbox with a sad eagle on it and plead for charitable donations too?

There are plenty of other sources that provide charity outside of the government, such as religious institutions. For example, annually the Vatican will spend roughly 96.9 billion dollars on health-care as well as 4.6 billion on other forms of charity work. To put things in perspective, the United States spent 37.7 billion combined on foreign aid in 2012. To say that donations couldn't supply a large amount of charitable needs is blatantly false.

also, good luck finding anyone with money to donate after the free market roars to life,

What's to say people won't? Plenty do now willingly, as I've previously shown.

the corporations automate/outsource/offshore literally everything

Ever wonder why companies move away from America? Calls for ridiculously high wages, demands for increased benefits, and most prominently a 39.1% corporate income tax. Argue as you may with the benefits of labor unions, in all reality they have became the downfall of American businesses, not to mention the notion that people think the rich will keep their assets here in America with the whole "Tax the living shit out of the rich" vibe that so many leftists seem to think is a plausible solution.


and the unemployment rate hits 80%.

Any evidence supporting this claim?

think of how scary that anarchy will be especially with racists like Ben Garrison everywhere

>not relevant

[phuckphace]

As harsh as it sounds, I could care less if I'm feeding children in Africa.

I made a thread about the counterproductive effects of African aid. I can at least agree to an extent that Africa is less important than our own country, from our perspective.

What I concerned about is that now portions of the money I worked hard to earn is now being sent off to help others[...]

you aren't entitled to every penny that crosses your path. death and taxes, bro. (I do think taxes should be lowered on the middle class, but still).

on the flipside I don't think people are necessarily entitled to public welfare either, which should be awarded as a privilege based on demonstrable need and good behavior. there's nothing unreasonably communist about helping your fellow citizens out.

(That is what's left after the government dips it's hand in it to pay for the expenses) instead of me being able to use it to further my own life, the life of my lover, or the lives of my children.

if I just got to keep that extra 25% my life would be literally 25% more betterer!

Why should I need to care about others when my own immediate family could use that money?

I highly doubt you need every penny of your gross income to adequately provide for your family (provided you're an adult with a real job).

There are plenty of other sources that provide charity outside of the government, such as religious institutions. For example, annually the Vatican will spend roughly 96.9 billion dollars on health-care as well as 4.6 billion on other forms of charity work. To put things in perspective, the United States spent 37.7 billion combined on foreign aid in 2012. To say that donations couldn't supply a large amount of charitable needs is blatantly false.

at present charity does have a notably beneficial effect. I don't believe I implied it was a bad thing. what's ridiculous is the idea that charitable institutions alone could adequately meet the needs of 325 million people, as some libertarians believe. considering that lolbertarianism is literally "fuck you got mine" made policy, I have trouble believing that the Greed is Good crew would be so inclined to donate any of their ~*~*~*hard earned money*~*~*~

Ever wonder why companies move away from America? Calls for ridiculously high wages, demands for increased benefits, and most prominently a 39.1% corporate income tax. Argue as you may with the benefits of labor unions, in all reality they have became the downfall of American businesses, not to mention the notion that people think the rich will keep their assets here in America with the whole "Tax the living shit out of the rich" vibe that so many leftists seem to think is a plausible solution.

have you seen THE DONALD'S tax plans? he wants a low flat tax for corps and no tax at all for the lowest bracket. if that won't get you on board with the Trump train then nothing will :P

admittedly I'd have every shit-eating billionaire (including Trump) pay like 50%, but I'm still voting for him as he's still the shitlordiest of them all.

Any evidence supporting this claim?

corporations have to be actively restricted and smacked around because they have a long record of taking parsecs when given inches. they will pollute the environment if they aren't regulated, they will do all sorts of political fuckery if they aren't regulated, etc. etc. etc. see everywhere this has ever happened. regulation undermines competition, see: Vlerchan, "ugh, you're just jealous of ~my success~", (p. 2) (2015) (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3159608&postcount=30)so a truly free market requires regulation and intervention to avoid corporate collusion and abuse of power. if a huge company puts a smaller competitor out of business, well that's just creative destruction, bigot.

>not relevant

'twas a joke, brah, you were supposed to laugh

[Arkansasguy]

Inspired by another post, but basicly there's something I want to discuss;

I think right/conservative thinking is more instictive, and in a way very logical; you want to take care of yourself and others close to you. You work and do something for society and as a reward you get money to exchange for your own choices. If you fail to work you fail to provide something for society and someone else has to provide for you for example.

Because in reality, nobody really cares about a distant group of people; the bigger the difference, whether it's money, culture, langauge, race, the less you care instinctively.

My question though; why bring this mindset into politics? Politics, which litearly has the purpose of providing for society as a whole and not you.
I find very conservative people extremely self centrered for bringing this mindset into politics and basicly saying; I'll do what it takes to make a good life for myself, you figure your own out.

I'm aware of the image of conservatives being traditional angry old people, but I really notive a large portion is also the 4chan-esque angry youths, who are smart and actualy have promising futures.
I just don't get it, I know pepole my age like this. I feel like it's this extreme expression of this edgy "I don't have compassion for other people!" attitude.
A girl I know literaly said survival of the fittest should be an element of society and that if someone fails to pay for their cancer treatment it's only logical for them to die.

Can't we atleast pretend to care for other people? Even if it goes against your every instinct, can't we atleast try to pretend we understand that making a sacrifice to pay for people in need isn't really any different than working?
You're helping society.
Yes you can work and help society that way, and hope the money somehow ends up in the right place like trickle down economics or you can actualy allow the state to have influence in a way that allows people actual oppertunity and quality of life.

Basicly my point is I udnerstand that both sides will always continue to exist; I just don't understand that in this age and day it's still such a major part of actual politics.

Sorry if this was poorly written, but please share your thoughts. On a side note, I'm not even that liberal/leftist; I'm a lot less liberal than a lot of people I know but I'm stil all for proper state healthcare for example, something that I can't even fathom the USA still doesn't have.

Conservative thinking is as you acknowledge the more natural way of thinking. That you can't correctly work out its implications does not speak ill of it.

Liberalism on the other hand is what happens when you get people to open their minds so wide that their brains fall out.

[mattsmith48]

Conservative are selfish fucks who base their politics on "what jesus said" but completely ignore the bible except when it agrees with them like for gay marriage or killing someone for working on sunday and they say everyone should be forced to believe in the same imaginary friend then them, they think socialism is the work of the Devil when their precious bible agrees with socialism. For them The best way to stop terrorist is to do terrorism, they are sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic and they are going to doomed us with their stupidity

[Arkansasguy]

Conservative are selfish fucks who base their politics on "what jesus said" but completely ignore the bible except when it agrees with them like for gay marriage or killing someone for working on sunday and they say everyone should be forced to believe in the same imaginary friend then them, they think socialism is the work of the Devil when their precious bible agrees with socialism. For them The best way to stop terrorist is to do terrorism, they are sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic and they are going to doomed us with their stupidity

I always find it gratifying to be called stupid by someone who can't even correctly form a sentence.

[Uniquemind]

Inspired by another post, but basicly there's something I want to discuss;

I think right/conservative thinking is more instictive, and in a way very logical; you want to take care of yourself and others close to you. You work and do something for society and as a reward you get money to exchange for your own choices. If you fail to work you fail to provide something for society and someone else has to provide for you for example.

Because in reality, nobody really cares about a distant group of people; the bigger the difference, whether it's money, culture, langauge, race, the less you care instinctively.

My question though; why bring this mindset into politics? Politics, which litearly has the purpose of providing for society as a whole and not you.
I find very conservative people extremely self centrered for bringing this mindset into politics and basicly saying; I'll do what it takes to make a good life for myself, you figure your own out.

I'm aware of the image of conservatives being traditional angry old people, but I really notive a large portion is also the 4chan-esque angry youths, who are smart and actualy have promising futures.
I just don't get it, I know pepole my age like this. I feel like it's this extreme expression of this edgy "I don't have compassion for other people!" attitude.
A girl I know literaly said survival of the fittest should be an element of society and that if someone fails to pay for their cancer treatment it's only logical for them to die.

Can't we atleast pretend to care for other people? Even if it goes against your every instinct, can't we atleast try to pretend we understand that making a sacrifice to pay for people in need isn't really any different than working?
You're helping society.
Yes you can work and help society that way, and hope the money somehow ends up in the right place like trickle down economics or you can actualy allow the state to have influence in a way that allows people actual oppertunity and quality of life.

Basicly my point is I udnerstand that both sides will always continue to exist; I just don't understand that in this age and day it's still such a major part of actual politics.

Sorry if this was poorly written, but please share your thoughts. On a side note, I'm not even that liberal/leftist; I'm a lot less liberal than a lot of people I know but I'm stil all for proper state healthcare for example, something that I can't even fathom the USA still doesn't have.


It's because their what I call "triage thinkers". Instead of wanting to see the big picture and the ripple effects of action and in action, they cut off what they analyze: you've noticed this to as them lacking compassion, because they focus on what matters to them.


The problem is after Jr. High, and High school, we teens are very closely psychological conditioned to seek quick answers to problems from class, HW etc. and then move on to the next thing. That pattern continues and is also shaped by a misunderstood concept of Evolution in the natural world, being applied to the artificial human one. (The concept of poor : not fit, having money : best fit to survive) is not what Charles Darwin meant, nor is it backed up by science.

Those with certain brain chemistry, get sucked into it, and they relate to a more black/white, right/wrong, version of seeing the world. It makes sense and it's easy for them. They aren't purposefully trying to be mean, (some are), but often times they can't relate until they personally go through a situation they criticized before experiencing it themselves....they have trouble with empathy. They might be able to do sympathy, but not empathy. The flip side is that they usually are orderly people, meaning they do have their life together.


Those who are liberal are better at empathy, but they tend to be less orderly as a group. Because of that they are less effective at grouping together an arguing for a platform of issues.
They do not vote consistently, because whether they vote or not depends on how they feel, and feelings are fickle beasts....hence why mid-term election a the American Democratic Party can't defend house of representative seats or senate seats very well, and wonder why the President is gridlocked.




Conservative are selfish fucks who base their politics on "what jesus said" but completely ignore the bible except when it agrees with them like for gay marriage or killing someone for working on sunday and they say everyone should be forced to believe in the same imaginary friend then them, they think socialism is the work of the Devil when their precious bible agrees with socialism. For them The best way to stop terrorist is to do terrorism, they are sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic and they are going to doomed us with their stupidity

Careful there, your making a philosophical mistake in how your reacting to your own perception of another's perspective and reasons for seeing the world as they see it.

I'll promote you to figure out where you went wrong and where you let pride influence this post, but it does need fixing to a balanced state.

Tip: your reaction is emotionally charged too much so.

[lyhom]

Conservative are selfish fucks who base their politics on "what jesus said" but completely ignore the bible except when it agrees with them like for gay marriage or killing someone for working on sunday and they say everyone should be forced to believe in the same imaginary friend then them, they think socialism is the work of the Devil when their precious bible agrees with socialism. For them The best way to stop terrorist is to do terrorism, they are sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic and they are going to doomed us with their stupidity

I'm hardly close to being a conservative and I find this laughable lmao

[Salad_Baby]

Conservative are selfish fucks who base their politics on "what jesus said" but completely ignore the bible except when it agrees with them like for gay marriage or killing someone for working on sunday and they say everyone should be forced to believe in the same imaginary friend then them, they think socialism is the work of the Devil when their precious bible agrees with socialism. For them The best way to stop terrorist is to do terrorism, they are sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic and they are going to doomed us with their stupidity

This is laughable on so many levels.

[Miserabilia]

It's ridiculous to generalize all right wing politics into a "fuck the poor" image. Simply because I don't feel the need to have to be weighed down by others without my own consent doesn't mean that I wish for those less fortunate than I to die. In fact, I think the idea that society should voluntarily choose to help those who are less fortunate is a step forward, while stealing from our pockets without our consent is a step backwards. I think the man who donates $10 out of his own pocket by his own will is better than the man who has $100 taken out of his payroll.

But hey, fuck individual choice man.

You don't have a fuck the poor image! You just don't want to be weighed down by them... and look away from them...
But ofcourse you can still help.. with your own consent so the government doesn't steal your money! So how much have you donated already? :)

Conservative thinking is as you acknowledge the more natural way of thinking. That you can't correctly work out its implications does not speak ill of it.

Liberalism on the other hand is what happens when you get people to open their minds so wide that their brains fall out.

I can't correctly work out it's implications... how exactly?

A vague analogy about liberalism doesn't exactly show any argument against it either.

[Uniquemind]

This is laughable on so many levels.

But you understand the general point of where he's coming from, even though he's glossed over a lot of the details of inaccuracies right?

His general message makes sense, and he's not the only one to see the conservative message like that. His fallacy is that conservatism = bible, which isn't always the case.

Those who are close to the bible, make up only a percentage of those who fall under the conservative label.

If you are outside that niche of the label, then you find matt's responses partially funny and/or offensive.

[Salad_Baby]

But you understand the general point of where he's coming from, even though he's glossed over a lot of the details of inaccuracies right?

His general message makes sense, and he's not the only one to see the conservative message like that. His fallacy is that conservatism = bible, which isn't always the case.

Those who are close to the bible, make up only a percentage of those who fall under the conservative label.

If you are outside that niche of the label, then you find matt's responses partially funny and/or offensive.

Yes, I do understand where he's coming from, but I just find it funny how he went about delivering his stance..

[Arkansasguy]

I can't correctly work out it's implications... how exactly?

A vague analogy about liberalism doesn't exactly show any argument against it either.

Conservative particularity does not reject concern for others, indeed all persons are connected to us in some way. It rejects a welfare state in which the poor are made dependent on the state. It's called subsidiarity, things should be handled at the lowest level possible.

[Sir Suomi]

I made a thread about the counterproductive effects of African aid. I can at least agree to an extent that Africa is less important than our own country, from our perspective.

Holy shit we actually agree on something politically :P

you aren't entitled to every penny that crosses your path

And why am I not? Why should I not be fully awarded after working? Saying that is similar to a teacher taking 5 points off your test, the test you put in countless hours studying, simply because there are others in your class who don't score as high as you. What's the point in work if there is no reward? Don't try and give me the whole "it help's the rest of society" bullshit, because I've already explained my thoughts on that.

on the flipside I don't think people are necessarily entitled to public welfare either

Don't get me wrong. I agree that people who are genuinely disabled and incapable of supporting themselves do deserve help. While I'd much rather it turn to private charitable foundations, I also understand that said foundations aren't always available. My point being is that for those who are capable of providing for themselves deserve no help from the rest of society.



if I just got to keep that extra 25% my life would be literally 25% more betterer!

That 25% could decide whether or not you children will go to college, whether you'll be able to pay your bills, feed yourself, etc. To imply that missing out on 25% of your income wouldn't be such a huge deal is, well, stupid. No offense here.

I highly doubt you need every penny of your gross income to adequately provide for your family (provided you're an adult with a real job).

Tell that to the people living paycheck to paycheck. Imagine if they didn't have almost 1/5 of their paycheck taken away.



what's ridiculous is the idea that charitable institutions alone could adequately meet the needs of 325 million people, as some libertarians believe.

I'll agree, it can't cover everything, as I've previously said. However, I believe that in all honesty that donations could directly help those in need much better than the government.

I have trouble believing that the Greed is Good crew would be so inclined to donate any of their ~*~*~*hard earned money*~*~*~

Like I've said, people do it today. Literally there would be no reason for it to alter really. And if you don't want to help others, while as much of an asshole you may be because of it, I don't think you should be forced to.

have you seen THE DONALD'S tax plans? he wants a low flat tax for corps and no tax at all for the lowest bracket. if that won't get you on board with the Trump train then nothing will :P

Rand has a tax plan that would lower taxes even more. If that doesn't get you on the Paul Wagon, I don't know what else will :P

admittedly I'd have every shit-eating billionaire (including Trump) pay like 50%, but I'm still voting for him as he's still the shitlordiest of them all.

That's what I'm saying. The Rich are rich for a reason. I understand higher tax rates than middle and lower classes, but if you tax them too much, they'll either just exploit loopholes to get out of it or simply put their assets in other countries with lower taxes.



corporations have to be actively restricted and smacked around because they have a long record of taking parsecs when given inches. they will pollute the environment if they aren't regulated, they will do all sorts of political fuckery if they aren't regulated, etc. etc. etc.

I can agree with this, to an extent. I agree that their should be certain aspects of business that should be monitored. Such examples would be like you said, environmental pollution, political corruption, attempts at creating monopolies, etc. I'm not stupid. I've read up enough on the Gilded Age to realize that total absence of regulation leads to some bad shit. However, I'd like to see regulations loosened on businesses. These things would include the right to refuse service to individuals, the right to hire and fire who they choose, etc.


You don't have a fuck the poor image! You just don't want to be weighed down by them... and look away from them...
But ofcourse you can still help.. with your own consent so the government doesn't steal your money! So how much have you donated already? :)

I'm a 17 year old that receives barely enough personal income to keep gas in my car and the occasional guys night out. Considering any actual monetary value, I haven't donated much. However I've volunteered countless times to help out those less fortunate in my community, so I'd say that's about as much as you can expect from me.

I can tell you really don't have an argument against me, and instead are trying to go for personal attacks by trying to paint me as someone who is selfish. It was a bold move there Cotton, but it didn't play out.

[Uniquemind]

Holy shit we actually agree on something politically :P



And why am I not? Why should I not be fully awarded after working? Saying that is similar to a teacher taking 5 points off your test, the test you put in countless hours studying, simply because there are others in your class who don't score as high as you. What's the point in work if there is no reward? Don't try and give me the whole "it help's the rest of society" bullshit, because I've already explained my thoughts on that.


Ohh ohh I have an answer for this.


Answer: Because at any given point in time what defines "a fully reward" has been subjective, and there isn't enough social criticism to always keep in check what quality of work defines that outcome (the reward).


Factor in variables that fluctuate, like inflation and other factors when it comes to money, and suddenly you get a dogma that doesn't have the same kind of flexibility, honesty, and fairness, that reflect changing times.


That's the core flaw, rigidity.


Compound that with time, and money flow cycles, and with concentration of wealth comes power influences and leverage of other people, along with force in some cases (because richer you are the more property you can own, the more you can control what happens on said property).

It corrupts the other concepts of liberty, slowly but surely, on a macro level.


Sir Suomi people have the right to refuse service, they just can't do so on subjective grounds, same goes with who is hired and fired. Let's not forget they lost those rights to an extent because they abused them first to express subjective views (not backed up by science) with regards to social darwinism, racism, sexism, and ageism.

They in theory get those rights back once the human mind doesn't have these perceptive flaws anymore. That seems fair.

[Sir Suomi]

Ohh ohh I have an answer for this.


Answer: Because at any given point in time what defines "a fully reward" has been subjective, and there isn't enough social criticism to always keep in check what quality of work defines that outcome (the reward).



You've made this much more overly complicated in this manner. What I'm asking is that if I'm paid $15 to rake Mrs. Brown's lawn, why should I not receive all of my money? Surely I put in the time and labor, why should I not get $15 as promised? Literally what's the point of working at all if you're not paid to the full extent you are promised?

[Vlerchan]

In fact, I think the idea that society should voluntarily choose to help those who are less fortunate is a step forward, while stealing from our pockets without our consent is a step backwards.
Even if it results in poor people dying as a result?

I also support welfare for three reasons:
It's existence enables greater mobility of labour and thus the process of creative-destruction and thus growth.
It eases social tensions and reduces crime and thus encourages growth.
On moral grounds, it's rent earned on their acceptance of the violence that enables those to make their riches.
The last point is interesting for Libertarians. Private-property is built on coercion too.

My point is that what's the point of helping others when you don't want to do it willingly?
It helps others.

I'll emphasise the fact that I don't care if some people are greed-driven fuckers.

Why should I need to care about others when my own immediate family could use that money?
This - mind you - is an argument against all charitable giving.

Calls for ridiculously high wages, demands for increased benefits, and most prominently a 39.1% corporate income tax.
You expect people in the U.S. to compete with China-tier wages? Please define a non-ridiculous wage otherwise.

Define 'benefits'.

It's also irrelevant to cite corporation tax. Lots of U.S. firms register in places and then continue to host their bases in the U.S. It's not that influential.

Tell that to the people living paycheck to paycheck. Imagine if they didn't have almost 1/5 of their paycheck taken away.
Oh no. Those poor 95 - 99%-ers!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/US_Federal_Income_and_Payroll_Tax_Rates.png

You've made this much more overly complicated in this manner. What I'm asking is that if I'm paid $15 to rake Mrs. Brown's lawn, why should I not receive all of my money? Surely I put in the time and labor, why should I not get $15 as promised? Literally what's the point of working at all if you're not paid to the full extent you are promised?

You would have received all your cash from Mrs Brown. I would also imagine you would have done so with the knowledge that some would be taxed.

If you mean, why does the government get to tax me. Well, where does private property come from in the first place.

[Uniquemind]

You've made this much more overly complicated in this manner. What I'm asking is that if I'm paid $15 to rake Mrs. Brown's lawn, why should I not receive all of my money? Surely I put in the time and labor, why should I not get $15 as promised? Literally what's the point of working at all if you're not paid to the full extent you are promised?

It's called getting paid "under the table" in cash only.


Also in response to the why tax, versus rely on charitable donations, the answer has to do with cash flow to meet the demand for certain needs.

So take an example: On average Thanksgiving charitable budget REQUIRES $3 million usually to meet demand.

But one year (2008) demand has huge spike, and now the budget triples to $9 million, but only the standard $3 million comes in or less, because families/individuals/companies who are still surviving cut how much they donate because they're tightening their wallets as well.

Charities aren't going to handle that scenario well, the theory behind tax-welfare is that it guarantees a certain cash flow for certain causes at a certain rate. (Loopholes throw a wrench into this but that's a separate issue which most agree needs closing). And yes this means that those not willing to donate, have to surrender some of their paid earned $, get taken. Whether it's theft, or something they feel good about doing, is up to their perspective on life.



Now I get that government has a lot of spending waste, but that's a separate issue, specifically closing loopholes and putting more accountability into spending, and ensuring you have moral people working for the government, not greedy shills and backroom crony capitalist friends-hiring within certain social circles.

[mattsmith48]

I always find it gratifying to be called stupid by someone who can't even correctly form a sentence.

Auto correct...

[Sir Suomi]

Even if it results in poor people dying as a result?

My question to you is that should society be responsible for ensuring the survival of those who without help would otherwise perish? Don't get me wrong, I support helping those in need. I would just prefer it be done through voluntary methods instead of being forced.


It helps others.

While harming yourself. See the issue there?

This - mind you - is an argument against all charitable giving.

Granted. I won't argue with that.

Do you have one aimed specifically at welfare?

My main issue that I disagree with helping others while forcing harm on others (i;e: Taxation)


Please define a non-ridiculous wage otherwise.

Mainly the minimum-skill jobs. I believe wages up to $15 is quite ridiculous to demand when a business can simply replace you with a machine that will do the job much more efficiently and for much less. I'll agree that the $7.25 is too low in most cases, but $15 is out of the question.

Define 'benefits'.

Unlimited maternal leave, insurance, paid vacation, etc. Don't get me wrong, these should exist in work environments that wish to keep their employees both working hard and to stay in their jobs. However their are demands that simply aren't affordable or practical for some businesses.

It's also irrelevant to cite corporation tax. Lots of U.S. firms register in places and then continue to host their bases in the U.S. It's not that influential.

Point being here is that instead of paying taxes here in America, they pay taxes overseas or even none at all, depending on the area. This is due to a massive tax rate that our government employ.

If you mean, why does the government get to tax me. Well, where does private property come from in the first place.

I can understand property tax. It's income tax that I have issues with.

[phuckphace]

when I allude to lolbertarians wanting an all-out corporate free-for-all I'm not talking about things like freedom of association (that I can actually get behind) I'm talking about the ones who think environmental regulation is a restriction on competition (it is) and should thus be overturned. their "solution" is to allow corporations to pollute as much as they like and if too many gigabecquerels start flying around, people will just take their business elsewhere or something, lmao

[Uniquemind]

My question to you is that should society be responsible for ensuring the survival of those who without help would otherwise perish? Don't get me wrong, I support helping those in need. I would just prefer it be done through voluntary methods instead of being forced.




While harming yourself. See the issue there?



Granted. I won't argue with that.



My main issue that I disagree with helping others while forcing harm on others (i;e: Taxation)




Mainly the minimum-skill jobs. I believe wages up to $15 is quite ridiculous to demand when a business can simply replace you with a machine that will do the job much more efficiently and for much less. I'll agree that the $7.25 is too low in most cases, but $15 is out of the question.



Unlimited maternal leave, insurance, paid vacation, etc. Don't get me wrong, these should exist in work environments that wish to keep their employees both working hard and to stay in their jobs. However their are demands that simply aren't affordable or practical for some businesses.



Point being here is that instead of paying taxes here in America, they pay taxes overseas or even none at all, depending on the area. This is due to a massive tax rate that our government employ.



I can understand property tax. It's income tax that I have issues with.

It sounds to me that the issue should change to become how government and tax cash flow should be used to help small businesses endure burdens in their bottom line, to ensure employees get decent healthcare, maternity leave, more guaranteed income in return for a quality worker.

It could also be coupled with the idea that the base salary rise on Low earning employees, and yeah they still make more, but the gov. still get's the cash flow that ultimately returns to you in a different form.

It's like I'm the government and i tax you a dollar and 6 months later I return your dollar....not much is lost is there?

At a certain point the notion of taxation is more infuriating compared to the actual reality of it you have to make knowledge that.

[Sir Suomi]

It sounds to me that the issue should change to become how government and tax cash flow should be used to help small businesses endure burdens in their bottom line

This can be achieved by simply taxing smarter, and using the money we tax smarter. Something that most of our politicians seem incapable of.

to ensure employees get decent healthcare, maternity leave, more guaranteed income in return for a quality worker.

Most businesses do this without requiring prodding from the government. It's simple business logic that in order to get hardworking and loyal employees you need to keep their paychecks at an adequate level, provide good working conditions, and to provide some forms of benefits.

It's like I'm the government and i tax you a dollar and 6 months later I return your dollar....not much is lost is there?

My argument here is that I believe I as an individual can better use that dollar myself rather than the government deciding what it's used for. It's no different than someone robbing your for your cash but later on fixing your roof.

[Vlerchan]

My question to you is that should society be responsible for ensuring the survival of those who without help would otherwise perish?
From a utilitarian perspective it maximises welfare on accounting for diminishing marginal returns and so on.

It's also the case that it helps maximise expected utility in T(n+1).

It's also the case that societies might want to ensure a minimum standard of living on the grounds that any individual might find themselves at the bottom.

People dying on the streets lowers property values in that area.

While harming yourself. See the issue there?
No. Probably because I'm not an Ethical Egoist though.

I'm not sure how one justifies it.

My main issue that I disagree with helping others while forcing harm on others (i;e: Taxation)
The problem is that you're using a very narrow definition of 'help'. What if we broaden it to functions like upholding the rule of law, inc. that surrounding property rights.

Do you support property rights, since these require coercion, esp. through taxation, to maintain?

I'll agree that the $7.25 is too low in most cases, but $15 is out of the question.
You'll find that's still quite high when compared to developing countries.

I also agree that we shouldn't be raising the minimum wage since it's an ineffective tool to tackle impoverishment.

[..] Unlimited maternal leave [..]
Under current U.S. federal legislation woman are guaranteed at least 12 weeks unpaid leave after having a child. That's quite low when compared to other Western countries.

If you're complaining about Trade Unions, we're off the point of coercion.

[..] insurance [..]
Far as I'm aware most of the big companies that would be capable of offshoring volunteer to provide this.

If you're complaining about Trade Unions, we're off the point of coercion.

[..] paid vacation [..]
Far as I'm aware there's no federal legislation mandating this. There might be state legislation though.

If you're complaining about Trade Unions, we're off the point of coercion.

Point being here is that instead of paying taxes here in America, they pay taxes overseas or even none at all, depending on the area. This is due to a massive tax rate that our government employ.
The average corporation tax rate in the U.S. is around 18%. There's lots of loopholes.

I also thought you disagreed with taxation so why should that matter?

I can understand property tax.
Our income is a claim on private-property, it's property ex-ante.

I'm also talking at a broader level than just your house. I'm talking about property-ownership as a legal construct underlining all economic relations in capitalist economies.

My argument here is that I believe I as an individual can better use that dollar myself rather than the government deciding what it's used for. It's no different than someone robbing your for your cash but later on fixing your roof.
Ever heard of Economies of Scale?

The government also aims to pursue social goals that might not occur to the average individual despite it being in their interests.

[Uniquemind]

This can be achieved by simply taxing smarter, and using the money we tax smarter. Something that most of our politicians seem incapable of.



Most businesses do this without requiring prodding from the government. It's simple business logic that in order to get hardworking and loyal employees you need to keep their paychecks at an adequate level, provide good working conditions, and to provide some forms of benefits.



My argument here is that I believe I as an individual can better use that dollar myself rather than the government deciding what it's used for. It's no different than someone robbing your for your cash but later on fixing your roof.



3 things.

1. Part-timers don't get good benefits, and contract workers don't either. It's a legal loophole and it's what corporations have been secretly using to save $.

If American corporations feel that bad about the tax situation, they'll leave but only to a certain extent, that why try tried outsourcing customer service call centers to India, that didn't work well for various reasons relating to geographical distance and also accent problems hurting customer service, and now those jobs are somewhat returning.


2. So you admit the concept of taxation is more infuriating than the actual outcome. You've proven my point.


3. Congress being wasteful and spending stupidly is another topic we can work constructively on. It is in large part due to gridlock and probably how legislation is drafted and tested for votes. This is a issue unfortunately that can only be solved after we stop arguing about tax this or don't tax that...if it is insisted we debate the tax thing it fuels the gridlock and we get a circular no progress argument. Fact: somebody's pride has to break for the sake of science. Then we can test outcomes and debate from there.



Let's also not forget that those who decide to leave bad working conditions get media labeled "freeloaders, entitled brats, stupid poor, slow ranking on the social Darwinist ladder".


There I've illustrated the entire cycle of why we haven't been able to get change. People at a political voter level follow the cycle and they're mind and mouth follow those emotions & they follow suit and there you go we don't listen to the people that we need to be listening to, we've biased ourselves.

It happens on both sides but currently it's the conservatives who are more insulated to change by definition and it's why they're wrong objectively.


Now runaway liberalism is bad to, but other posters have already criticized them in aways I agree with so I haven't ripped into it as much.

[Miserabilia]

I'm a 17 year old that receives barely enough personal income to keep gas in my car and the occasional guys night out. Considering any actual monetary value, I haven't donated much. However I've volunteered countless times to help out those less fortunate in my community, so I'd say that's about as much as you can expect from me.

I can tell you really don't have an argument against me, and instead are trying to go for personal attacks by trying to paint me as someone who is selfish. It was a bold move there Cotton, but it didn't play out.

That's a nice observation but obviously not what I meant.
If you beleive the poor should be helped with donations, I'm giving you and me right now as an example.
You don't consider yourself rich but neither do I and we both have perfectly good homes and money enough to buy food sustain yourself and still have left for trivial things to buy.
The point being, if you only give people the OPTION to donate, what option do you think they will choose? The easier one, or the one where they make less money?
In a right wing world where you have to "make something of yourself" and "climb up the ladder" the last thing you're even going to think about doing is deliberately giving your money away to poor people; especialy with your reasoning which basicly is that they should just work harder.

[Uniquemind]

You've made this much more overly complicated in this manner. What I'm asking is that if I'm paid $15 to rake Mrs. Brown's lawn, why should I not receive all of my money? Surely I put in the time and labor, why should I not get $15 as promised? Literally what's the point of working at all if you're not paid to the full extent you are promised?

Let me also add that I HAVE to give a complex answer.


In fact by trying to only accept a simple response as an answer to your question, it poisons the concept of an honest dialogue here.

If anything I've said is untrue, sure that's a valid counter, but I won't except a pivot that my response to your initial question was any less valid.

[Vlerchan]

I'm going to get a bit right-wing for a few moments.

also, good luck finding anyone with money to donate after the free market roars to life, the corporations automate/outsource/offshore literally everything and the unemployment rate hits 80%.
Is there a reason that this isn't happening at the moment. It's not like it's been made illegal. If it was the case that we max-deregulated it would also reduce the likelihood.

Vlerchan, "ugh, you're just jealous of ~my success~", (p. 2) (2015)
Just to add needed clarification.

It's a demonstrable fact that when guidelines are enforced it stops all those from meeting those guidelines from competing. That doesn't mean that societal outcomes would be superior though in an environment lacking regulation. It's something that should be approached on a case-by-case basis.

their "solution" is to allow corporations to pollute as much as they like and if too many gigabecquerels start flying around, people will just take their business elsewhere or something, lmao
There solution is rather to introduce and uphold stricter private-property rights. Then if someone pollutes that someone can be sued. It sounds like it would be difficult to ensure to me - and cap-and-trade is superior - but it's a plan at least.

---

Answer: Because at any given point in time what defines "a fully reward" has been subjective, and there isn't enough social criticism to always keep in check what quality of work defines that outcome (the reward).
The point of job markets is that it matches the labourer that values his time and the boss who values the objective-achieved at an equivalent level.

There's lots of subjective inputs into the decision-making process here but the wage is objective in that is in agreed amongst the relevant parties.

Factor in variables that fluctuate, like inflation and other factors when it comes to money, and suddenly you get a dogma that doesn't have the same kind of flexibility, honesty, and fairness, that reflect changing times.

There's literally no reason to presume that both parties aren't factoring in inflation expectations and so on.

That's the core flaw, rigidity.
Let's pretend this is correct. It doesn't seem to line up with Sir Suomi's argument.

If a 'given reward' is subjective then what makes the gvt. better to wade in and mediate?

Compound that with time, and money flow cycles, and with concentration of wealth comes power influences and leverage of other people, along with force in some cases[.]
It seems somewhat antithetical to let those with political power decide on the future dispersion of political power.

It's like I'm the government and i tax you a dollar and 6 months later I return your dollar....not much is lost is there?
Given the time-preference of most individuals: on-average, there's a definite loss.

[Sir Suomi]

People dying on the streets lowers property values in that area.

Understandably.


Probably because I'm not an Ethical Egoist though.

Guilty as charged.

Do you support property rights, since these require coercion, esp. through taxation, to maintain?

It may sound hypocritical, but yes. Mainly because I understand the reasoning behind property taxation. Property taxation served the needs of America up until the early 1900's until they implemented income tax. Now our system has become one of several forms of taxation, including property tax.


You'll find that's still quite high when compared to developing countries.

Understandably. However I can at least acknowledge that it doesn't work well in some sectors of the United States, mainly those with larger cities.

Under current U.S. federal legislation woman are guaranteed at least 12 weeks unpaid leave after having a child. That's quite low when compared to other Western countries.

You've got to think of it from a business perspective, however. Having 1+ years of paid maternal leave is simply unaffordable to some businesses. However, simply because 12 weeks is the minimum, does not mean that that's all you'll get here in America. Many large corporations are allowing up to a year of paid maternal leave for the employees. Simply put, they value their employees and wish to keep them, so they grant the benefits like this in order to keep them loyal and hardworking.

The average corporation tax rate in the U.S. is around 18%.

I'm confused on here. Politifact puts the effective tax rate at 27.1%. Am I misreading or misunderstanding something here?

I also thought you disagreed with taxation so why should that matter?

I disagree with it entirely, but I understand that they are necessary. I simply disagree with over-taxation.

[Uniquemind]

Vlerchan,

I understand the common response is that wages reflect what the job's work is worth because of the market place.

At face value, I see some truth to that argument but not enough to justify the concept on a broad scale, especially during what we all saw in 2008, or in almost every case where damages caused by a corporate action and (staff) at the time still take paychecks when they massively screwed up. They end up only covering a fraction of the consequences they caused, with the original justification usually being they were seeking profit in the first place.

Also every time some kind of new regulation comes down, the first excuse is that "oh it'll cost businesses too much they'll go under", well my counter to that is that other businesses will come up to snatch up the marketshare they leave behind.

That line was used to resist the American's with Disabilities Act, where things like mandates for making handicap things accessible was resisted because remodeling was "too expensive". In the long run the economy seems fine.

So you know what? The line is old. Change happens, businesses adapt DESPITE rising costs or others take their place. They don't go oversees, for cultural and other legal reasons, and logistical reasons that the customers happen to be Americans.


Also any successful corporation has a bunch of cash in reserve, to whether storms of change, (kinda like how apple is sitting on a lot of $) not all of that has to go into reinvestment, some of it can be used for other purposes.

Wages can't obviously spike, but when I keep reading or seeing my parents thrown into situations where at the dinner table they talk about how they have to use a fraction of their paycheck to keep their health coverage under their employer's plan, I really am skeptical to believe that the political right truly understands the loopholes that are getting around a lot of protections and labor laws/negotiations where on paper they're supposed to pay, but they're not.

So no I challenge that "wages" are objective, and not subjective based on cultural expectations under the guise of math of expense reports being objective.

(I recognize the syntax of this post is off, I just for some reason can't seem to word it right but hopefully you see my point).


Also many part-time employees or contract workers (there's a legal difference), don't get the other perks of full-time "employees". (no paid-vacation, maternity leave, and a mix of partial-benefits).

So there really is no incentive to keep employees loyal anymore, at least not the average person. Also the same job of today, pays less for the same type of work pre-2008, but it's the same job. That needs explaining since the stock market recovered for the most part and wages have not returned to the same levels that obviously worked then, so why not now? (the only answer could be greed, and that the $ that went to wages before are being stuffed elsewhere).

[Vlerchan]

At face value, I see some truth to that argument but not enough to justify the concept on a broad scale, especially during what we all saw in 2008, or in almost every case where damages caused by a corporate action and (staff) at the time still take paychecks when they massively screwed up. They end up only covering a fraction of the consequences they caused, with the original justification usually being they were seeking profit in the first place.
Sure. Sometimes the boss gets the judgement wrong and that sinks the firm. That would have happened if the U.S. hadn't bailed out the various financial institutions and insurers like it did. It makes no sense to claim that's what a normal market functions like when the U.S. gvt. happened to be knee-deep in it.

Also every time some kind of new regulation comes down, the first excuse is that "oh it'll cost businesses too much they'll go under", well my counter to that is that other businesses will come up to snatch up the marketshare they leave behind.
If a regulation is introduced that increases costs then that won't sink the firm but it will re-frame relationships so it needs to downsize. It becomes more expensive to produce some good and as such demand for that good jobs. The size of that market also falls so there's no scope for more entrants to snap up the lost market share.

Least ceteris paribus.

In the long run the economy seems fine.
I'm not sure if you realise you're doing this. In the short-run K is fixed. In the long run K is free to shift to some profit maximising value. It's definitional that such a change would be fine in the long-run because all firms could re-arrange expenses to provide for it and in the case of structural improvements that cost can be absorbed and ignored thereafter.

I'm also not sure of the legislation so I can't argue whether it might have had a bad short-run impact.

Change happens, businesses adapt DESPITE rising costs or others take their place.
Sure. I'm not even sure what this has to do with the comments I made about taxation.

They don't go oversees, for cultural and other legal reasons, and logistical reasons that the customers happen to be Americans.
Ok. Well, 10s of 1000s of jobs are still offshored each year and I don't think it's because the firm's nasty.

I also don't think this is necessarily a bad thing though: creative destruction and all that.

Also any successful corporation has a bunch of cash in reserve, to whether storms of change, (kinda like how apple is sitting on a lot of $) not all of that has to go into reinvestment, some of it can be used for other purposes.
Sure.

Wages can't obviously spike, but when I keep reading or seeing my parents thrown into situations where at the dinner table they talk about how they have to use a fraction of their paycheck to keep their health coverage under their employer's plan, I really am skeptical to believe that the political right truly understands the loopholes that are getting around a lot of protections and labor laws/negotiations where on paper they're supposed to pay, but they're not.
Sure. If there's loopholes cost-minimizing firms are going to attempt to utilise them.

I just want to add because of what precedes it that this isn't relevant to pricing in the labour market.

So no I challenge that "wages" are objective, and not subjective based on cultural expectations under the guise of math of expense reports being objective.

I'm going to repeat what I said in the last post.

The point of job markets is that it matches the labourer that values his time and the boss who values the objective-achieved at an equivalent level.

There's lots of subjective inputs into the decision-making process here but the wage is objective in that is in agreed amongst the relevant parties.

I highlighted the most relevant part. Firms have a host of considerations and so do labourers. Of course these include culture-derived considerations. The labourer won't be hired unless she and the firm hold some shared value that can be agreed upon. This value is objective insofar that it is agreed amongst the relevant parties. It can also be stated to be objective within the market as a whole because otherwise the labourer would move.

However I'd agree that's a bit of a stretch since labour mobility is imperfect.

---

I also believe that the cost function a firm faces is objective. I'm also a determinist so I believe that the labourers preferences are objective. But these assumptions of perfect information in this regard can be relaxed and the point still holds.

Also many part-time employees or contract workers (there's a legal difference), don't get the other perks of full-time "employees". (no paid-vacation, maternity leave, and a mix of partial-benefits).
Sure. Not arguing against that either.

So there really is no incentive to keep employees loyal anymore, at least not the average person.
Except like Sir Suomi mentioned in a lot of cases firms will offer benefits above what regulations demand. I would agree that trends of the last number of decades haven't been kind to wage-labourers though.

That needs explaining since the stock market recovered for the most part and wages have not returned to the same levels that obviously worked then, so why not now?
There's literally zero reason to presume that because stock markets have recovered that wages should return to pre-cash levels. That won't happen until - at least - the unemployment rate reaches the natural level - it hasn't in the U.S. - and labour markets begin to tighten. You can see this in the U.K. where wages long held stagnant have begun to heighten.

U.K. Wage Growth Hits Six-Year High as Labor Market Tightens

U.K. wages grew at their fastest pace in more than six years and the unemployment rate unexpectedly fell, suggesting inflationary pressures are building in the labor market.

Pay excluding bonuses rose an annual 2.9 percent in the three months through July, the most since early 2009, the Office for National Statistics said Wednesday in London. The jobless rate fell to 5.5 percent, matching the lowest since 2008.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-16/u-k-wage-growth-hits-six-year-high-as-labor-market-tightens

So yeah.

There could be other factors behind U.S. wages not rebounding of course but I believe we've the suspect here.

---

Understandably.
Some people are just born selfish I guess.

---

I'm also not sure if it's at first understandable this is a joke. Just go with the blackest interpretation.

Mainly because I understand the reasoning behind property taxation.
What's the reasoning.

I'm also not sure it follows that we can be against illegitimate coercion when it is found in one form but not when it's found in another quite-similar one. If this form of taxation saw a massive increase to offset the zero-ing of income taxation would it be more just for some reason?

However I can at least acknowledge that it doesn't work well in some sectors of the United States, mainly those with larger cities.
How so? I'm interested here.

Having 1+ years of paid maternal leave is simply unaffordable to some businesses.
Sure. I can agree here. But then nowhere offers that sort of leave.

Germany - and can we agree that Germany is quite business friendly? - has the highest paid rate, at 42 days paid.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/14/Federally_mandated_maternity_leave_by_country.gif/220px-Federally_mandated_maternity_leave_by_country.gif

Many large corporations are allowing up to a year of paid maternal leave for the employees.
Yeah. I can recognise all this. The point I was making is that comparative to competitor states of a similar income bracket the U.S. is hardly drowning it's home-firms in regulations in this regard.

I'm confused on here. Politifact puts the effective tax rate at 27.1%. Am I misreading or misunderstanding something here?
I was recalling a statistics I'd read quite a while back and checking it doesn't quite fit with the claim - it was accounting for the loopholes that allowed firms to place cash in tax havens. I also found the paper that politifact is citing from and think-tank that refers to itself as nonpartisan but has been accused on occasion of being conservative-leaning. Though it's better than what I sourced so I guess we can roll with it.

On this note I think it would be ideal if corporate taxation was <10%. Progressives seem to believe that it's getting on up on the rich but what it does is reduce investment and hinder wage growth (See: Felix 2007 (https://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/RegionalRWP/RRWP07-01.pdf), Arulampalam et. al 2011 (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/swarulampalam/publications/adm_march2012.pdf) and Felix & Hines 2009 (http://www.voxeu.org/article/who-will-bear-corporate-income-tax-increases) for a non-technical discussion). I would much prefer wealth taxation or some form of progressive consumption taxation.

I simply disagree with over-taxation.
I don't believe you'll find someone who doesn't. The question is, what is over-taxation though.

[Uniquemind]

Anyway back tracking for a second to a be topic example from American politics version of liberalism and conservatism is this topic: healthcare.


http://youtu.be/5d3nASKtGas


And I'm posting this video because John Oliver comedian and social commentator does it so well.


The hypocrisy that exists within conservatism, which makes the whole premise of conservatism disgusting unless it's proponent has been personally consistent. In defending against liberalist acceptance of welfare money, according to the vernacular.


Reference to the video: "oh your house and business burnt down, ya didn't have insurance, ll then go depend on charities, not government assistance, because now you gotta walk the talk"



This, and now I'm speaking to everyone, is why conservatism is objectively wrong, and it is slowing down human progress. It's based on old history tested premises, which fragments have some merit in retaining, but not the whole ideology.

The ideology of conservatism had to jettison, certain claims of certain topics that make up the platform, and unfortunately you have people who feel modifying the label is a a betrayal of "principles", an ultimate no-no.

Hence I have explained why the American political right is having a tantrum and meltdown with itself.

[Miserabilia]

Anyway back tracking for a second to a be topic example from American politics version of liberalism and conservatism is this topic: healthcare.


http://youtu.be/5d3nASKtGas


And I'm posting this video because John Oliver comedian and social commentator does it so well.


The hypocrisy that exists within conservatism, which makes the whole premise of conservatism disgusting unless it's proponent has been personally consistent. In defending against liberalist acceptance of welfare money, according to the vernacular.


Reference to the video: "oh your house and business burnt down, ya didn't have insurance, ll then go depend on charities, not government assistance, because now you gotta walk the talk"



This, and now I'm speaking to everyone, is why conservatism is objectively wrong, and it is slowing down human progress. It's based on old history tested premises, which fragments have some merit in retaining, but not the whole ideology.

The ideology of conservatism had to jettison, certain claims of certain topics that make up the platform, and unfortunately you have people who feel modifying the label is a a betrayal of "principles", an ultimate no-no.

Hence I have explained why the American political right is having a tantrum and meltdown with itself.

Thank you! Basicly what I wanted to say, but better explained.

I so so SO strongly disagree with any lack of free healthcare for many reasons simply because it's incredibly unfair. Treatment is just expensive; that's the way it is. Medicine is expensive, doctors are expensive. This way you're letting innocent citizens die or suffer just because they haven't been blessed with a giant herritage of money or don't have an amazing well paid job yet.
The whole goal of a state is basicly protecting and caring for the citicens in return for their work and money... Yet actualy taking care of them, wether it's the sick or the elderly, is turned into a busenes; just another way to make money off people.

[jgjgj]

Conservative are selfish fucks who base their politics on "what jesus said" but completely ignore the bible except when it agrees with them like for gay marriage or killing someone for working on sunday and they say everyone should be forced to believe in the same imaginary friend then them, they think socialism is the work of the Devil when their precious bible agrees with socialism. For them The best way to stop terrorist is to do terrorism, they are sexist, racist, homophobic and xenophobic and they are going to doomed us with their stupidity

That's exactly how right is here in Spain. Those who form the conservative party are the sons of those who were in the government before 1975 with Franco and the fascism.

[phuckphace]

That's exactly how right is here in Spain. Those who form the conservative party are the sons of those who were in the government before 1975 with Franco and the fascism.

Franco held your nation together. now you're a serfdom of Merkel. get back to work so Fatimah can collect her welfare and vote for Sharia law

[Judean Zealot]

Franco held your nation together. now you're a serfdom of Merkel. get back to work so Fatimah can collect her welfare and vote for Sharia law

The beginning of Franco's government was pretty shitty, actually. But later on he got his act together.

Regardless, expect no sympathy for Franco in Spain. They've had this government sanctioned damnatio memoriae going against him for the past 20 years or so.

[phuckphace]

The beginning of Franco's government was pretty shitty, actually. But later on he got his act together.

Regardless, expect no sympathy for Franco in Spain. They've had this government sanctioned damnatio memoriae going against him for the past 20 years or so.

ungrateful twats, the lot of them. then again misery and atomization is always sold as "freedom" and people just snap it up.

10 Euro says the older generations remember Franco fondly. wonder why.

[jgjgj]

Franco held your nation together. now you're a serfdom of Merkel. get back to work so Fatimah can collect her welfare and vote for Sharia law

I'm absolutely at the other side of Merkel. Were the Conservatives who made our economy obey what Germany and Merkel said and on Sunday here we have the opportunity to change things, to make a fairer country and finish with political corruption. That's what the new left party says here and that's what I'm going to vote for cause in this country there is room for everyone who is suffering any kind of war. A war which is being financed by US, EU, Russia and their friends.