Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Pacifist, Feb 10, 2019.
Since this has become a topic
Political standing shouldn't matter if what you propose is a solution to a problem, the benefits of which outweigh the negatives, from there we can decide whether to go through with it or follow a similarly beneficial different option.
Accept the R A D I C A L C E N T R I S T way.
That is something a Centrist would say. See, I would agree with you here but the problem is that conservatives offer no real or pragmatic solutions to anything. They are emotional traditionalists who see progress as a waste of time despite the fact that we do need to progress as we are falling behind the world. Let's see how they tackle issues:
Global warming? Doesn't exist.
Income Inequality? Doesn't exist. If it does exist, free market will fix it.
Social welfare? Cut it to hell. Poor people don't deserve shit.
Education? Privatize schooling to maximize profits for charter schools.
Healthcare? Slash it. When we aren't slashing we are fighting to keep prices high so insurance companies make the money.
Trade? Fuck that. Only losers trade. Protectionism all the way baby.
Making life better for minorities? Fuck that. Make their lives harder by passing voter ID laws and ignoring institutional problems.
I'm not a leftist because i'm all about peace and love and shit. I want to change things for the better, but guess who always has to get in the way. Give me one solution conservatives have to any problem. I'll see how pragmatic you actually are.
Haven't heard this one yet, unless you are talking about a gender pay game, can you talk a bit more on this so I know what to research and get an opinion on this?
Gender pay inequality doesn't exist. I'm sorry. If you're talking about something else please specify.
Seems your problem is not with being unable to agree with me, but rather conservatives. xD I feel they represent our hesitation to accept new things, something we need in moderation, but ofc that does not mean the party represents the ideal. UK labour party shifted its focus away from the working classes to the middle class, turning on their founding ideas, so ya know, call em what they are not what they want.
Also generalising like that doesn't aid the discussion. The argument of global warming is no longer of its existence, but rather whether it's 'our' fault and if we can/should fix it, the conservatives typically leaning on the: it's not worth our time and budget and our industry or interests come first side, as would be expected from a status quo notion.
Gender pay gap exists in so much as it's a self-solving problem now, the 77/100 deal is widely debunked as unrepresentative of reality (97/100 is more accurate), and the number of women in the higher areas of business is on the increase so culture is shifting away from the novelty and expectations of the past few decades. You can generalise from there a bit better.
Furthermore, if a market, no matter how controlled, believes it can exploit a cheaper workforce, it will without hesitation, 'bare' would likely best describe the minimum wage set by a free market.
Yeah, it's kinda inherent and appropriate to apply an individualistic policy to conservatives, but that doesn't mean they feel that poor don't deserve shit, more that their goal may be to encourage people to work for a better quality of life.. whether or not that's a working strategy idk.
and so on..
You get my point, in a country as large and amusingly diverse as the US you're not gonna be able to paint it in two colours and expect that to describe the people, although that applies to most of the rest world tbh :/
The distribution between rich and poor in the United States is slowly but surely widening. The top 1% are getting richer while the poor has only went up slowly. Now, this may not seem to bad, but it will lead to further instability of our political and social lifestyles. This unequal distribution really fucks over those who aren't really rich. Now, I am not saying that things need to be equal, but they need to be more balanced than they are now. The best way to accomplish this is to strengthen social wealthfare programs and increase taxation on the rich. I think the best approach is an alternating system of high and low taxes on the rich, that ways they get to experience periods of vast growth followed by a wintered period of stagnation. This will cause them to invest smarter while also balancing the gap.
I was not talking about a gendered wage gape. I pretty much agree with Lordy that the disparity is quite small and arguably fair enough. While total equality would be ideal, especially if the variables for their employment lined up, it isn't a realistic goal.
And I say that I can't agree with any of the things that i've heard conservatives argue for. I tried to go at it with an open mind but I just can't. It isn't that i'm irrationally hating on the right, I'm hating on them because the shit I have seen is unforgivable. I hope that makes sense. I still like you lordy because you are progressive
You know the rich already get taxed a rediculous amount? Some of the people in the 1% get taxed 55% of their income. You don’t make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. The government has plenty of money, the problem is it is dumped in places where it’s not needed/overkill. Saying that we should tax the rich is redundant because they already get taxed a stupid amount, the real problem is how the government is spending the tax.
And even then, we dont have a place to put it right now that will help the impoverished. We would need to have stuff like universal healthcare provided by the government, free education(this is probably the best out of them all in my opinion) or something on these terms.
it would be a disgustingly stupid idea to have times of high taxation and times of low taxation. All you will have is companies temporarily closing and then reopening when taxation is low again. This will destroy consumers, and will honestly destroy the impoverished.
Please never do this.
Half of 40 billion is still more than i'll ever see. Regardless of all that, I mean to say that YES we should be diverting funds from other places to pay for free healthcare and free education. The problem is that this won't happen because war gets the government hard. So the next best option that I see is taxing the rich. Besides, you are aware of the marginal tax rate system correct?
I mean to say over a large period of time. Not like every year but more like every 10 or so years. Besides, just a thought anyways.
Still, a company will lay off people for those 10 years to keep very good profits. You'll just set a depression/recession every 10 years for 10 years
it's really pacifist vs the world rn
I mean it seems unreasonable to tax someone more than 50% just because they make a lot of money and its more than most people will see. They made that money its not like they sleep all day. These people own companies and employ people. If you cut their income, they will be able to employ less people and start outsourcing to cheaper Countries for employment. Like Customer service, etc.
Ok well let me ask you this:
-Do they actually invest that money? Or do they just pocket it?
-How much money do corporations save in health insurance when Universal Healthcare is implemented?
-How does having money save a company from outsourcing? Even if they don't have to, if it is cheap, why wouldn't they?
-Did they make their money if it was inherited?
-We already cut their income, and we have in the past. Income inequality became a thing right after taxes were lowered. This is where we get to the hardest question:
Why are the rich entitled to keep their income, but I am not?
Let's take this step by step.
Duh they want to make more money, by investing some in research and some in making more factories or whatever, they invest. Not your typical investing.
Possibly a lot, possibly losing money. But right now it is very iffy for universal health care, so it is better for them to put their money to not increasing taxes.
It's called tax cuts, and other benefits from the government.
Income inequality is not a bad thing. If I have more money invested and it makes more money. It's called exponential growth. To punish people because they are in the later stage of that curve is stupid. What needs to be punished is tax evasion and illegal money saving things etc. Not punishing people for making money.
You are. Just because someone makes more than you, even after taxes, doesnt entitle you to more money. That's very selfish of you.
If a company has enough money, then they will go for US workers to create jobs and give back, also because it’s convenient to deal with an employee in person. But when you hire a US employee you have to pay for things like health insurance, benefits, the whole 9 yards. If you outsource, a lot of those costs are cut. Have you ever called uber eats/doordash customer service? They’re all Filipino, it saves the company a lot of money instead of hiring US Customer service reps. So to answer your question, some companies do outsource because it’s so much cheaper, but the ones that care and can afford it hire from the US.
What about brexit hello?
All the talk on employment and shit is kinda funny.
You guys have to realize that some of these best work for companies in certain industries while it doesn't fully work for other industries.
Secondly, you have to realize one thing: Most companies are there to make profit.
If outsourcing allows them to have more profit while making sure that they achieve what they need, they will most likely do it. visa versa.
Again, this does not work for all industries as some industries require people within their local vicinity.