Put Me In Charge

[PranaDevil]

Discuss.

Put the guy in a mental institute because he hasn't got a single nut fully tightened.

[PranaDevil]

Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I’d do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations.

Yes, because it's women that are the problem.

Funny thing is vasectomies are actually cheaper.

Castration's cheaper still.

Just gimmie a big sword and something to cauterize it after.

Cue all the guys wincing.

[PranaDevil]

I was going to write a legitimate reply to RC when I read the food part... then I read the rest. Therefore the only reply I can come up with to really convey just how stupid his post was is this:

[PranaDevil]

Nah, Cornette Face sums it up nicely.

[PranaDevil]

On an extra note, basically everybody in the Gulag was male so, depending on your world view, this either hampers the latter part of point 4) or it just leads to point 5)

5) The people who created the Gulag were not homophobes

It explains earing not being pluralised is what it does.

[PranaDevil]

Nonononono. They are

already

getting paid for and supported by the government, but the government is getting no return from it. This guy is suggesting that they do at least SOME work for the money they get from Uncle Sam, not to mention Joe Taxpayer. And I agree with that.

And pray tell, where are the jobs that you'll have these people do actually come from?

If there's a job that needs doing, PAY people for doing it. Don't get cheap labour doing it. That's where it becomes slave labour instead of "making people earn their benefits".

It's what they're actually bringing into the UK soon. If you've been unemployed for a year you will have to work for one month out of every 3. And how are we getting the jobs to give these unemployed people?

Why we're firing people from jobs to open the spaces up.

Yeah, that sounds like a cracking way to fix the unemployment situation... make MORE people unemployed and deliberately lessen the amount of jobs out there by putting them aside for those who are trying to find work to do while they try and find a job you are forcing them to do. Which in turn can lead to someone being forced to return to work in the exact same office, doing the exact same job that they were previously doing, but instead of being paid at least minimum wage for doing the work (which would amount to roughly £210 a week), they would instead be doing it for £64 each week. Sounds like a fair deal to me!

[PranaDevil]

The only thing I note you forgot to comment on is:

"We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the “common good.”"

Which is basically "You previously worked and earned your money to pay for some stuff you like, but now you're not working, we will forcibly take them from you and sell them to someone more deserving because you were fired when a company downsized".

Which in effect would be the government actively stealing from people to fund the country.

[PranaDevil]

Except as has been pointed out, people can't be on welfare indefinitely. Which means chances are they'll have worked at some point to buy some of the stuff that's getting sold for the "common good".

Sure, you might hit some people who would have spent their unemployment on stuff like that (in any system there will be some who are able to cheat it after all, but it's generally the minority, not the majority), but in general you would still be taking from those who have bought things prior to being unemployed.

[PranaDevil]

So you suggest we continue to let people work the system? How are they going to earn the money we give them? Do we make them do ANYTHING to earn the money, or do we just continue to freely give?

No, but punishing the many for the sins of the few is utterly stupid.

To even suggest that the majority of people unemployed are in that position voluntarily AND are working the system is laughable.

The majority are out of work and are trying to claw their way back into a position where they can work for a living. Why should we punish those people for the small handful who are able to work the system? The same handful who, if we change the system, will work it to their advantage somehow anyway? The only people who will truly suffer by making things harder for the unemployed are those who play by the rules in the first place. It wont change things for those screwing over the system. If anything it will make more people want to screw the system because the system is screwing them.

[PranaDevil]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

[PranaDevil]

I don't think "tax the shit out of the rich" is the answer either.

For one, if they've earned their money by putting in the effort, then fair play, they're then entitled to do whatever they want with it. If they wish to give it to their children so the kids don't ever have to work... well fair enough, they're entitled to do so. Of course they should also understand that the kids are likely to grow up to feel like they're entitled to have everything given to them. Which is why they should be made to earn the money. But not a reason to tax them more.

But what should happen is that all classes are taxed the same percentage. Millionaires shouldn't get additional tax breaks. That's basically saying that anyone earning above X amount is better than anyone earning under that amount. Which is not true.

Of course the flaw is that if you actually expect the big companies and millionaires to pay the same percentage of tax as the rest of the country they'll balk at it and fuck off elsewhere.

[PranaDevil]

Yeah, how dare I say everyone should be treated equally!

[PranaDevil]

I don't think "tax the shit out of the rich" is the answer either.

For one, if they've earned their money by putting in the effort, then fair play, they're then entitled to do whatever they want with it. If they wish to give it to their children so the kids don't ever have to work... well fair enough, they're entitled to do so. Of course they should also understand that the kids are likely to grow up to feel like they're entitled to have everything given to them. Which is why they should be made to earn the money. But not a reason to tax them more.

But what should happen is that all classes are taxed the same percentage.

Well, there's a fundamental problem with this. It's called exponential growth.

Money that you invest, or that you earn interest on, grows at an exponential rate. That's one of the basic rules of capitalism. The more you start with, the faster it grows. So what that means is that if you have two people, and person A starts with a little bit more capital then person B, then over time, person A's wealth will grow faster then person B's. Not because person A is working harder, or is smarter, or is a better person; that's just how capitalism works. The person with more capital to invest gets more money, faster, and thus ends up with even more capital to invest.

So over time, if you let everyone keep their money, or tax everyone at the same rate, and let wealth accumulate in rich families for generation after generation, the gap between the rich and the poor just keeps getting bigger. Eventually, you end up with a small super-powerful oligarchy that owns basically everything, and everyone else is, relitive to them, poor. That's just a function of how the numbers work.

In order to prevent that, in order to keep some kind of fair and democratic society, instead of a permanent caste system, you need some kind of mechanism to redistribute wealth. This isn't to punish anyone, or anything like that. If person A wants to work harder then person B in order to spend more money, that's fine, that's a matter of personal choice. But huge accumulations of wealth, billions of dollars in the hands of private individuals that just keep growing and growing at ever faster rates, are bad in the long run, unless a significant part of the profits are pulled off by the government and used for the common good, to help everyone in the country.

You appear to be of the assumption I'm saying that the rich should pay less tax. I'm saying that the percentage of their earnings that they pay in tax is less than the middle class and working class, and it should be changed so that all three classes pay the same percentage in tax.

For example, if the working class and middle class pay 15% tax (as an example), why should the rich say... pay only 12%? It should be a flat percentage clean across the board, no favouritism shown to one class or another.

[PranaDevil]

rich people should be paying a much higher percentage than the middle class (which doesn't actually exist anymore fyi) and the lower class

Yet in reality the opposite is true.

Yet you seem to be arguing that it shouldn't be.

you're dumb + shouldn't post.

[PranaDevil]

Yet in reality the opposite is true.

yep

Yet you seem to be arguing that it shouldn't be.

wat

Either you don't know what the fuck you're on about, or what I said went over your head.

I'm not saying Poor should pay £200 and rich should pay £200.

I'm saying Poor should pay 15% and Rich should pay 15%

Which is fair. At the moment the rich pay a smaller percentage of tax than poor. You don't need to reverse the roles to the rich paying a higher percentage. But it should be changed so they pay the same amount.

Otherwise you're saying "Hey, you've chosen to work in a better paying job, so we're going to fuck you over for trying to better yourself".

[PranaDevil]

Okay then, let's just pretend that your idea is even slightly good.

Tax bracket A goes from 0-£10,000 a year. In that bracket you don't pay any tax.

Tax bracket B goes from £10,001-£20,000 a year. In that bracket you pay 15% tax

Tax bracket B goes from £20,001 and up a year. In that bracket you pay 25% tax (We're not talking realistic numbers but simple ones to understand for this exercise, as it would work regardless of money involved)

Someone earns £19,500 a year, and is therefore paying £2925 tax per year. Leaving a net profit of £16,575

They get a pay rise of £1000, to £21,500 a year. They now pay £5375 tax each year. They now have a net profit of £16,125

Meaning they get a pay rise of £100 and actually lose £450 out of it.

According to you, this would be fair.

[PranaDevil]

It looks like the US system is different to the UK then.

But the fact still remains that a lot of the bigger businesses and high paid businessmen get out of paying the taxes they should be paying and the government doesn't actually chase it up. A LOT of financial problems would be fixed by doing so. (I'm not sure about the US, but in the UK a few billion each year is lost on unpaid taxes by businesses and such. The government instead concentrates on clawing back a few million from benefits cheats).

[PranaDevil]

Worth noting I had typed that before seeing Yos' reply.

[PranaDevil]

I'd rather pay someone a decent wage to do it. But that could be me just thinking that if a job needs doing, then someone should be getting paid a wage for doing it. Especially when people want to work.

The prisoners get fed every day. Housed too, actually. Are they billed for medical care? I'm not sure about that. You could charge them for being in prison, pay them, and then take the money right back.


If you're worried about the unemployed getting cut off from money because the prisoners are stealing their jobs, just take the money you would have spent paying those guys to do it and put it back into welfare and foodstamps. Then the only difference between the two is whether you'll have idle citizens or idle prisoners.
The prisoners don't deserve to be idle.

But what have the citizen done to deserved to be forced into idleness? Can't you just buy a bunch of rocks for the prisoners to break up?

Few areas have neither volunteering opportunities nor jobs.

Then give the volunteering jobs to the prisoners?

I previously worked in a charity store, and we took in volunteers from the local open prison. (Prisoners went there when they were due to be released shortly, so this was a way of helping them back into society rather than just dumping them outside and letting them get on with it).

I don't see why jobs that someone should be getting a wage for should be given up for free. Charity work for various organizations is fair play. Nobody gets paid for it to begin with (well, barring managers and the occasional shop assistant and people in offices) and so they're not taking jobs away from other people.

[PranaDevil]

Wasn't really much supervision needed. If they upped and disappeared you just contacted the prison, who in turn contacted the police station and a warrant was issued for their arrest. Of course very very few people actually ran away from that prison because you were moved there when you were basically ready to be released. Be bloody stupid to run away and get another year or so inside when you were due to be released in 6 months.

Meaning the closest you had to bother with supervision was making sure you didn't stick anyone for theft or drugs on the shop floor where they could potentially access the money.

The guy we had driving the van was one of the prisoners in fact. A guy who was in for murder and due to be released within a couple of years (He was just waiting on the parole to come through). Pretty good bloke in fact, wound up being perhaps the best person we had working there.

[PranaDevil]

I just explained, in my very last post, that that's not at all how graduated income taxes work. You should probably go back and read my post, rather then me wasting time explaining this again.

You should probably go back and read my response to JD, who has already said the same thing, than me wasting time explaining this again.