WATCH NOW: Iowa presidential candidate forum from Council Bluffs. Appearing: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. 

Reply
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
96
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

96 Views
Message 1 of 184

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:



Zero to 70% is at least twice as progressive.  Sorry for your confusion.

 

No confusion here. Zero to 35% is progressive - the claim was that progressive had been taken away. The issue was not the degree of progression.


No, the "claim" was not that "progressive had been taken away" ........ you should read what others post a little more closely. Here is what I had said:  

 

"a top tax rate around 35% with ten less top tax brackets is not "progressive" when compared to a top tax rate of 70% with ten more top tax brackets".

 

Sorry for your confusion.


I appreciate your concern but zero to 35% is progressive. No comparisons needed - it is progressive all by itself..

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
96
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
116
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

116 Views
Message 2 of 184

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:



Zero to 70% is at least twice as progressive.  Sorry for your confusion.

 

No confusion here. Zero to 35% is progressive - the claim was that progressive had been taken away. The issue was not the degree of progression.


No, the "claim" was not that "progressive had been taken away" ........ you should read what others post a little more closely. Here is what I had said:  

 

"a top tax rate around 35% with ten less top tax brackets is not "progressive" when compared to a top tax rate of 70% with ten more top tax brackets".

 

Sorry for your confusion.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
116
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
136
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

136 Views
Message 3 of 184

@Olderscout66 wrote:

The notion of a "living wage" was embraced by America right up to 1968 when the MINIMUM wage was sufficient to support a family above the poverty line. Single people were able to save money and increase their wealth, poor people with children were "encouraged" to practice family planning and kids working part time could pay for their college.

 

Since 1968, Republicans have blocked increasing the minimum wage. Had they allowed it to increase along with the economy, it would be $12/hr not $7.25. We don't have to do anything new, we just have to return to what worked for ALL Americans, not just the rich and the white.


What has the minum wage to do with race??? 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
136
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
143
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

143 Views
Message 4 of 184

The notion of a "living wage" was embraced by America right up to 1968 when the MINIMUM wage was sufficient to support a family above the poverty line. Single people were able to save money and increase their wealth, poor people with children were "encouraged" to practice family planning and kids working part time could pay for their college.

 

Since 1968, Republicans have blocked increasing the minimum wage. Had they allowed it to increase along with the economy, it would be $12/hr not $7.25. We don't have to do anything new, we just have to return to what worked for ALL Americans, not just the rich and the white.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
143
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
149
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

149 Views
Message 5 of 184

@Cirice wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:


In the competitive free market environment, if one company cannot pay (for example) a living wage to an unwed mother with two children who is only qualified for an entry level position - how can another company???


Shouldn't every working person receive a living wage, regardless of their gender, marital status and the number of children they have?


Not regardless because such factors can change the definition of "living wage".

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
149
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
151
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

151 Views
Message 6 of 184

@Richva wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

So, in the case under discussion they both get paid the same. Is it based on his needs, her needs or the added value they give to the product?

 

BTW - seniority did increase salary "back in the day" in union shops.


I've worked in a couple of union shops and those did not use seniority for pay. 

 

I know the unions have metrics for determining the value add of each job. It became quite a science after some unions managed to put their companies out of business by asking for too much.  There are no U.S. flagged ships anymore and one reason was because of the union.  They learned that lesson pretty quickly.  It is one reason European laws require a Union representative on the board of directors. The can see what impact the union is having on the company. A good system.


I too worked in a union shop at one time. It took five years to reach top pay.

 

But we digress - what is your idea of salary definition - contribution to the value of the goods/services or need?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
151
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
152
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

152 Views
Message 7 of 184

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:



Zero to 70% is at least twice as progressive.  Sorry for your confusion.

 

No confusion here. Zero to 35% is progressive - the claim was that progressive had been taken away. The issue was not the degree of progression.

 

I suppose Zero to 100% could also be considered progressive - and there are those who would approve of that just so they got "a piece of the action (other guy's stuff)".


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
152
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
156
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

156 Views
Message 8 of 184

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:



We really should have a list of childish nick-names so we are sure who we are discussing. Oh? You mean like "Marxist", "Less Wise", "Loony Left", "Socialist", etc, etc?

No - and I think you know that.

Those names have been used by right wing posters for those on the left and yes they are "childish nicknames" - and I think you know that.

"Raygun"?????

 

As to Conservatives "undoing" - you'd have to read my post to understand the point. Just popping out with some meaningless response contributes nothing to the discussion. To you "meaningless" is something that disagrees with you. Reagan eliminated the top ten tax brackets, making our tax rates far less progressive. Facts can be confusing .......... try and "focus".

No - "Undoing" was the error.

 

No - the appropriate tax rates were mentioned as part of the discussion. The need for economic stimulation was mentioned as part of the discussion. No confusion in that. For example - we still have a progressive tax system as opposed to your, "Raygun "undid" our progressive tax system in America".

You mentioning something doesn't make it fact. And no - - - - a top tax rate around 35% with ten less top tax brackets is not "progressive" when compared to a top tax rate of 70% with ten more top tax brackets. Sorry for your confusion.

No confusion - if it goes fro zero to 35%, it is progressive. And that is a fact.



Zero to 70% is at least twice as progressive.  Sorry for your confusion.


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
156
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
166
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

166 Views
Message 9 of 184

@rk9152 wrote:


In the competitive free market environment, if one company cannot pay (for example) a living wage to an unwed mother with two children who is only qualified for an entry level position - how can another company???


Shouldn't every working person receive a living wage, regardless of their gender, marital status and the number of children they have?


Assume nothing. Question everything. And start thinking.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
166
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
255
Views

Re: Dem-Socialism

255 Views
Message 10 of 184

@rk9152 wrote:

So, in the case under discussion they both get paid the same. Is it based on his needs, her needs or the added value they give to the product?

 

BTW - seniority did increase salary "back in the day" in union shops.


I've worked in a couple of union shops and those did not use seniority for pay. 

 

I know the unions have metrics for determining the value add of each job. It became quite a science after some unions managed to put their companies out of business by asking for too much.  There are no U.S. flagged ships anymore and one reason was because of the union.  They learned that lesson pretty quickly.  It is one reason European laws require a Union representative on the board of directors. The can see what impact the union is having on the company. A good system.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
255
Views