Just how Crazy is Donald Trump!

[copier addict]

Provided my facts are correct.
The world governance (NWO which ever you prefer) have already defined the future social system as an %80 unemployed %20 working. The fact that every thing is becoming machine modernised gives rise to the ever increasing unemployment rate in every country. Knowing that there is not enough local money circulating at any given moment in the above social/financial system, how does a social system maintain the day-to-day financial flow effect to prop up a continuing out of balance u80/e20 society?

The simple facts are that the law of the jungle(survival of the fittest) will come into play if there is not enough money circulating in society. The gov't either pays the money at the dole queues or the gov't pays the money to the prison system full of the same people. It cost's ten time more to pay someone with in prison system than it does to pay the same person at the dole queue.


Again, if my facts are correct.
There is an (NWO) system already defined called the "many" or Man hour system, which is not understood like the "money" system as we know it. The "Many" system functions by paying workers or unemployed a flat rate in man hours regardless of their education, profession or work status. A person works, rests at a set rate of hours per week they are given 'X' amount of "manies" at a fixed total which released/circulated into society each week .Releasing "many"(man hours) at a fix rate will ensure that there is only ever 'X' manies floating around/circulating in society at any one time, thereby removing all systems of capitalist, greed, and taxation.

Some people out there would align themselves with such a social system as being communist or dictatorship.

It was a while ago that I encountered the actual "Many system" document online.

In my own honest truth ,I'm not sure if such a system is truly workable.


Problem:
The facts are for ever there, that we will be living in a society were %80 of people will be unemployed and %20 of people working.

Solution:
...... ? .....please inform me too.

How is a country viable with only 20% of the population paying taxes?

[gneebore]

I don't recall saying anything about capital gains.

Ah capital gains are a taxes on investments by people that can afford to invest the money they are "sitting on" Or did you miss the part in the url where it says "capital-gain-tax-revenue" If a person or company is earning a profit then that profit is taxed as income,agreed? So one of your contentions is that the rich stash away all their money to avoid paying taxes on it. Sorry but right now where I live we have in the works what actually happens when "rich corporations or people" have a chance to invest in expansion of business which hires more people. Boeing has built several plants in the area. The county before those plants were built was getting less than 100k per year in tax revenue. The land was empty and unimproved. In fact some of the property was actually owned by the county where the plants were built and not generating any tax revenue. Given a twenty year tax break Boeing built their plants and now the county is receiving during that twenty years over a billion in property taxes. Plus there has been a real building boom from other companies moving in and setting up warehouses, offices and plants nearby to supply Boeing with supplies and parts and even food for the workers at the plants. Then surprise surprise Volvo decided to build a new plant about twenty miles away in a rather rural wooded area. Guess what is going on there. Yes several small strip shopping centers have been/are being renovated and are opening new shops to cater to the traffic already on the increase.
The point being other than Boeing and Volvo opening plants near here is that people and companies are making investments that will when completed, result in capital gains to the original property and business owners. Who will then pay taxes on that gain in value when it was or will be sold. Or if the capital gains taxes are too high then they sit on the property and not sell so no tax revenues are collected at all.

[SalesServiceGuy]

I have a friend who manages a unionized plumbing company employing approx 50 plumbers. This company gets most of the big jobs in my area because they can deliver quality work on time and on budget. This company is rarely the lowest cost bidder and all of the workers are well paid. Large contractors prefer dealing with this company because in the construction industry when one trade falls behind on their timeline the whole project is effected.

There are certainly comparable non unionized plumbing companies in the local area that they compete against.

While I see little need for a union in the copier industry other industries, especially dangerous ones, like mining, require strict oversight outside of corporate control.

Society does seem to be slowly displacing low skilled workers with automation and technology. Nevertheless, even low skilled workers deserve a minimum living wage.

[gneebore]

Some people out there would align themselves with such a social system as being communist or dictatorship.

It was a while ago that I encountered the actual "Many system" document online.

In my own honest truth ,I'm not sure if such a system is truly workable.


Problem:
The facts are for ever there, that we will be living in a society were %80 of people will be unemployed and %20 of people working.

Solution:
...... ? .....please inform me too.

I vaguely remember from years ago being in a class in high school some similar statistics being part of some study or thesis put forward in the late 1800's. Where 20 to 40 percent of the population will be employed and the rest unemployed or in communes where all labor is evenly distributed and all product and goods are also even distributed. The employed were to be the ones producing goods for sales abroad for foreign capital and for production of needed equipment to be used in the communes for food and raw , cotton silk wool etc, material production. Where the "unemployed" were the ones living in the communes and working their own/common land for their own benefit without a salary being paid to compensate for their labor.

Actually there were some communes formed in the west and south where everyone "owned" part of the property and all foodstuffs were shared. Profits from excess production that could not be stored or preserved for future use went to provide payment for property taxes and the few vehicles owned by the commune so they could go to town and buy essentials not grown on the commune. A few were actually successful. And there may still be a few in existence.

[copier addict]

Ah capital gains are a taxes on investments by people that can afford to invest the money they are "sitting on" Or did you miss the part in the url where it says "capital-gain-tax-revenue" If a person or company is earning a profit then that profit is taxed as income,agreed? So one of your contentions is that the rich stash away all their money to avoid paying taxes on it. Sorry but right now where I live we have in the works what actually happens when "rich corporations or people" have a chance to invest in expansion of business which hires more people. Boeing has built several plants in the area. The county before those plants were built was getting less than 100k per year in tax revenue. The land was empty and unimproved. In fact some of the property was actually owned by the county where the plants were built and not generating any tax revenue. Given a twenty year tax break Boeing built their plants and now the county is receiving during that twenty years over a billion in property taxes. Plus there has been a real building boom from other companies moving in and setting up warehouses, offices and plants nearby to supply Boeing with supplies and parts and even food for the workers at the plants. Then surprise surprise Volvo decided to build a new plant about twenty miles away in a rather rural wooded area. Guess what is going on there. Yes several small strip shopping centers have been/are being renovated and are opening new shops to cater to the traffic already on the increase.
The point being other than Boeing and Volvo opening plants near here is that people and companies are making investments that will when completed, result in capital gains to the original property and business owners. Who will then pay taxes on that gain in value when it was or will be sold. Or if the capital gains taxes are too high then they sit on the property and not sell so no tax revenues are collected at all.

Jeepers, all I said was any tax breaks for the rich have to be made up by the poor.

[slimslob]

And now for a look at what is going on politically in Canada since a number of Canadians are so interested in US politics.
ORWELLIAN: Canadians Can Now Be Fined Or JAILED For Using Wrong Gender Pronouns | Daily Wire

The Daily Wire

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: The Daily Wire is a politically conservative American news and opinion website founded in 2015 by conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro, who currently serves as Editor-in-chief. Presents news with a right wing bias in reporting and wording. The Daily Wire has also published false information such as this and this from Ben Shapiro.
Source: http://www.dailywire.com/

I noticed that you did not respond to the accuracy of the actual article.

[slimslob]

I didn't say unions were perfect, but without them wages would drop sharply. Without the threat of unionisation big business would have no reason to pay good wages.
And you asked about whether the rich sitting on their money is bad. I don't know if it is or not, but I do know that whenever a tax break is given to the rich the money has to be made up somewhere, and that is from the not so rich

All I know about taxing the rich is that every time taxes on the rich have been raised, the purchasing power of my income has been decreased. And no I am not rich. The most I have ever made in a year was a little over $60,000. That was in 2005 when I was a reservist deployed to Iraq and in addition to base pay of $47880 I also received BAQ, SepRats, and Hazardous duty pay.

[gneebore]

Jeepers, all I said was any tax breaks for the rich have to be made up by the poor.

And when I countered with just one example of how tax cuts actually do raise tax revenues you countered with a statement along the lines of i never said capital gains. But there is an actual report by a congressional committee that has the figures of what happened after the Reagan tax cuts in 1981. The percentage of income taxes paid by the top ten percent of income earners went from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. While the percentages of taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of income earners went from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988. So now tell me how lowering the rate of income taxes on the rich actually raises the amount of taxes paid by the poor?

The actual results of lowering tax rates allows people that earn the money to keep more of what they earn. Lowering tax rates is not the same as lowering tax collections. In fact according to the records it actually results in increased tax revenues.

But here is the source for the statistics from that fountain of conservative dogma, Rutgers University.
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

[gneebore]

I noticed that you did not respond to the accuracy of the actual article.

And he never will because it conflicts with his preconceived notion that anything conservative is suspect. But if it comes from MSNBC or CNN it has to be concrete proof of the truth.

[theengel]

I don't recall saying anything about capital gains.

I think the point is that the money 'sat on' by the rich, does, in fact, trickle down. It was never Reagan's contention that the rich would pay higher wages or that they would give their money away if we gave them tax breaks. That idea is laughable. No one would even for a second pretend that would happen. Trickle Down Economics is the philosophy that the more people are allowed to keep their money, the more likely they are to start and/or invest in companies that require employees. The more employees that are needed, the smaller the unemployment line gets.

And it DOES lead to higher wages:

When employees are easy to find and fire, there's no incentive to pay a living wage. But when companies have to compete to get competent laborers, they're forced to offer more to those laborers. Right now, Amazon is offering up to $15 per hour in some of their warehouses. This is entry level work. It's not a living wage, no. But it's a lot for something a monkey can practically do. And that's all because they need workers and don't have enough of them.

Personally, I don't believe entry-level jobs should pay a living wage. It's up to individuals to further themselves and advance in a career. I've worked to fine-tune my skills as a technician over the years. I'm damn good at it. But the only way for me to live somewhat comfortably was to say goodbye to companies and start my own business (actually--I'm earning less now, but there's more potential). In our industry, 30 years of experience doesn't pay a whole lot more than 30 days of experience, and that's what sucks about a lot of industries. Unless you move into management, you still barely make ends meet.

My cousin is one of the best auto techs in this city. He can diagnose and swap an engine in about 1/3 the time it takes other experienced techs. And his paycheck is MUCH bigger than his coworkers'. In the auto industry, technicians usually get "flat-rate." If they take on, say, an engine rebuild, the job has an accepted number of hours that it should take (say 15, for this example.) When they're finished, they get paid for that amount of hours, whether they spent 5 hours or 30 hours on it. My cousin regularly brings home weekly paychecks with over 80 hours on them. I wish our industry could work in a similar way. I guess it'd be more difficult because so much of our work is travel.

Just a thought on unions and dangerous jobs: if we did away with tort reform, AND killed "arbitration" agreements (so that a poor man could still be allowed to bring his case to court instead to a company paid arbitrator), we would have no need for unions at all. My friends say I'm a liberal because of my very strong beliefs on this.

Anyway, Copier Addict, back to my point. Trickle Down DOES work. It DID work. I'm not sure why there's this sudden shift in our culture to look at what happened in the 80s and 90s and completely deny historical fact. When you look at where Reagan took us, there's just no way to refute his policies. The only downfall to his administration (as Trump pointed out during his Campaign) was that he didn't fight as hard to keep jobs in the US. And of course, there are always those douche-bags who take money earned in our economy and purposely give it to regimes who enslave, kill, and torture people. That type of trash will always exist. There's just nothing we can do about this kind of evil.

Oh yeah, BTW, thanks for your service Slimslob.