|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 18 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets? Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation. You couldn't postpone forever, just until you die. Even if you don't consider that an outright avoidance, there's still a tax benefit to the deferment. The plan relies upon someone stupid enough to loan all the rich people enough money to fund their rich lifestyle for their entire lives while never demanding repayment.
Wall St 
They'll consider the loan safe since the wealthy will use their considerable assets as collateral. Bill Gates has $72B in assets. Wouldn't you consider it safe to lend him $5mm so he can go on an awesome vacation? Just have him post $5mm of his assets as collateral.
|
^ No I wouldn't because I would suspect something foul if that scenario came up.
|
On September 18 2013 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets? Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation. You couldn't postpone forever, just until you die. Even if you don't consider that an outright avoidance, there's still a tax benefit to the deferment.
Avoiding until death still doesn't mean he escapes paying taxes, unless he actually has no money to pay his loan off at time of death (which is impossible in your example because he's borrowing against his assets).
Also, there is no net tax benefit in this case, unless the return on his investment is higher than whatever interest rate he is paying on his loan (in which case he should be borrowing more money for his business anyway). Here is a simulation of what I mean:
+ Show Spoiler +Starting point: 100$ in assets
Tax: 20%, happens when the assets are cashed in
Desired consumption per period: 8$ at the end of the period
Return on investment: 10%, happens during the period
Interest rate on loan: 10%, happens during the period
No-loan guy cashes in 10$ (8$ after tax) at the end of each period to match his desired consumption, while loan guy borrows 8$ at the end of each period to match his consumption. After three periods, both of them die. No-loan guy still has 100$ in assets, while loan guy has (100*1.1^3=133.1$) in assets but owes (8+8*1.1+8*1.1^2=26.48$) to the loan shark. Upon death, 33.1$ of loan-guy's assets are sold (and finally taxed) to pay his loan of 26.48$, meaning they both leave 100$ of assets (or 80$ of cash if those assets get sold) to their heirs, so no tax benefit to the deferment.
They paid different ammounts of taxes (no-loan guy paid 6$ while loan-guy paid 6,62$) but that's becayse no-loan guy paid it earlier.
Note that if the interest rate is higher than the return on investment, it's not worth it at all to do the loan option. If interest rate is lower than the return on investment, the they should both be getting those loans anyway.
|
United States7684 Posts
On September 18 2013 00:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Stagnation for everyone![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/2013/09/blogs/free-exchange/fullscreen_capture_17092013_152105.jpg) + Show Spoiler +THE Census released new figures on income and poverty today. (You can see summary slides here.) They're both grim and unsurprising. In 2012 the real median household income in America was flat relative to 2011 and down considerably from the pre-recession level. The poverty rate remains stuck at 15%. Looking beneath the headline figures I found this chart particularly interesting. There's a very interesting story about inequality here. From the 1970s to the late 1990s inequality grew because the incomes of the rich were growing much faster than the incomes of those at the median and below—but incomes at the median and below were growing. Since the late 1990s, however, incomes across the income spectrum have stagnated and declined, from the 10th percentile right on up to the 95th. Indeed, if you look at the latest data on top incomes from Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez you see that this trend applies, to some extent, even at the very top of the spectrum. The real incomes of the top 1%, 0.1%, and 0.01% were all below their 2000 level as of 2012. Now, that has a lot to do with the position in the business cycle. Top incomes were well above the 2000 level, then dropped precipitously during the crisis. The incomes of the top 0.01% plummetted 47% from 2007 to 2009, and have since risen 49%. There is good reason to believe that those at the top will soon attain new real income highs. Meanwhile the real incomes of the bottom 90% fell 12% from 2007 to 2009...then fell 2% from 2009 to 2012. Yet while no one is weeping for the very rich, it is interesting to note how different the past 12 years has been from the decades prior. The very rich didn't previously have any difficulty holding on to their gains; from 1975 to 2000 the real incomes of the top 0.01% rose (sit down for this) by 761%. (The equivalent figure for the bottom 90% is 13%.) It's a fascinating development. And it will be fascinating, and a little frightening, to see whether it continues. It is disconcerting enough when the income share of the superrich marches inexorably higher. When it does so amid an overall picture of income stagnation that is very bad news indeed. LinkArticle in spoilers. I don't know what definition of income the chart is based off of. Edit: @Farv, see paragraph 3 of the article (the .01%). Also, Forbes 400 is mainly concerned with wealth, not income.
I might be wrong here, but I think that graph would look very different if it showed the 99th percentile instead of (or in addition to) the 95th percentile.
|
percentiles aint worth shit in a power law world
|
United States44402 Posts
On September 18 2013 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2013 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets? Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation. You couldn't postpone forever, just until you die. Even if you don't consider that an outright avoidance, there's still a tax benefit to the deferment. The plan relies upon someone stupid enough to loan all the rich people enough money to fund their rich lifestyle for their entire lives while never demanding repayment. Wall St They'll consider the loan safe since the wealthy will use their considerable assets as collateral. Bill Gates has $72B in assets. Wouldn't you consider it safe to lend him $5mm so he can go on an awesome vacation? Just have him post $5mm of his assets as collateral.
Except he can't do that because it's a personal loan and for him to give you 5m of his assets would need them to first cross the wall to the point where he personally owned the money, rather than him owning a part of Microsoft which is worth money. Instead what he'd have to do is ask for you to give him money uncollateralised based on the promise of repayment someday.
|
WASHINGTON -- In a move that will change working conditions for two million Americans, the Labor Department announced Tuesday the enactment of a new rule that will extend minimum wage and overtime protections to home care workers, one of the fastest-growing occupations in the country.
As of Jan. 1, 2015, the long-awaited change will end a 38-year-old carveout that excluded workers who attend to the elderly and disabled in their homes from the basic labor protections enjoyed by most Americans. The home care industry had waged a prolonged lobbying campaign against the proposal, claiming it would raise prices on low-income customers and force companies to cut workers' hours.
The White House, however, has said that such a rule would rectify an injustice for a large pool of workers who log long hours for generally low pay. The change will also deliver on a personal promise that President Barack Obama made on the issue.
The Labor Department posted the final rule on its website Tuesday.
Most hourly workers in the U.S. are protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act, the bedrock Depression-era law that established the federal minimum wage and time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40. But when Congress tweaked the law in 1975, it added the so-called "companionship exemption," which excluded workers who provide "companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves."
Source
|
On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote:
yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake
Say's law doesn't work for labor because of the costs of hiring are not only limited to the salary paid to the worker. Also, labor on its own has to bring some kind of value for the employer. If the only value that an employer can receive from a particular person's labor is being brought coffee then that person could possibly snag this job for an appropriate wage of $0.10/hour.
edit: In short, Say's law DOES work.
|
This is how useless John Boehner has become.
In what would be a dramatic change of course, House Republican leaders are considering a strategy of risking a government shutdown at the end of this month if Obamacare isn’t defunded.
In the weekly conference meeting Wednesday morning, GOP leaders intend to propose a continuing resolution to keep the federal funded beyond Sept. 30 but strip out funding for Obamacare. The move was first reported by the conservative National Review.
Senior Republicans know the strategy is a nonstarter in the Democratic-led Senate, and for months have wanted to avoid a shutdown confrontation over Obamacare. The latest move is a tacit admission from leaders that they have, for the moment at least, been defeated by conservatives who are eager to eliminate the health care law at all costs. When the House bill fails in the Senate, as it is certain to do, House GOP leaders would then try to pass a “clean” continuing resolution that funds the government but leaves Obamacare alone. The prospects of a clean continuing resolution winning over most House Republicans are also remote.
“No decisions have been made, or will be made, until House Republican Members meet and talk tomorrow,” said Boehner’s spokesman Michael Steel.
Source
|
I don't understand you point at all
says law doesn't work for anything, not even liberals think that anymore, the 19th century called it wants its political economy back
|
On September 18 2013 03:54 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets? Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation. You couldn't postpone forever, just until you die. Even if you don't consider that an outright avoidance, there's still a tax benefit to the deferment. Avoiding until death still doesn't mean he escapes paying taxes, unless he actually has no money to pay his loan off at time of death (which is impossible in your example because he's borrowing against his assets). Also, there is no net tax benefit in this case, unless the return on his investment is higher than whatever interest rate he is paying on his loan (in which case he should be borrowing more money for his business anyway). Here is a simulation of what I mean: + Show Spoiler +Starting point: 100$ in assets
Tax: 20%, happens when the assets are cashed in
Desired consumption per period: 8$ at the end of the period
Return on investment: 10%, happens during the period
Interest rate on loan: 10%, happens during the period
No-loan guy cashes in 10$ (8$ after tax) at the end of each period to match his desired consumption, while loan guy borrows 8$ at the end of each period to match his consumption. After three periods, both of them die. No-loan guy still has 100$ in assets, while loan guy has (100*1.1^3=133.1$) in assets but owes (8+8*1.1+8*1.1^2=26.48$) to the loan shark. Upon death, 33.1$ of loan-guy's assets are sold (and finally taxed) to pay his loan of 26.48$, meaning they both leave 100$ of assets (or 80$ of cash if those assets get sold) to their heirs, so no tax benefit to the deferment.
They paid different ammounts of taxes (no-loan guy paid 6$ while loan-guy paid 6,62$) but that's becayse no-loan guy paid it earlier.
Note that if the interest rate is higher than the return on investment, it's not worth it at all to do the loan option. If interest rate is lower than the return on investment, the they should both be getting those loans anyway.
I was thinking you can still deduct the interest expense making the debt cost lower. Also, a general incentive to keep money in the corp where taxes are deferred. A lot of dividends get reinvested, which would be more burdensome from a tax perspective if tax rates on dividends were higher.
On September 18 2013 07:12 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 03:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:55 KwarK wrote:On September 18 2013 02:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:41 Sbrubbles wrote:On September 18 2013 02:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2013 02:15 KwarK wrote:
I've explained my taxation plan before but I'll repeat it. I want to create a wall between personal money and corporate money and operate a tariff on money crossing it. Companies, banks, any business entity can earn as much as they like and never have to worry about paying tax on it but it can only spend it on more business stuff. Makes that end of the equation incredibly simple. They can transfer it between each other (paying business expenses, suppliers and so forth) freely (as long as it doesn't leave the country). But that money doesn't mean anything, it can't be used to the benefit of any individual, no actual person is making money yet, it's just numbers at that point. Where you go after it is where the government already goes after income tax at the moment, the point at which money is paid by the business to an individual. You put in place a system of progressive taxation on all payments made by an entity on the business side of the wall to an individual on the other side, be it salary, interest on money, dividends, sale of stock, whatever. All money has to eventually cross that wall to be spent, it's no good to the people who own it on the other side, so you take a cut as they cash it out. That lets you do away with corporate tax, capital gains, sales tax (which is a flat rate tax that disproportionately hurts the poor) and all the rest of it. It also solves the hypocrisy where corporations have the resources and incentives to invest in finding tax holes that save them money but waste money overall (if I burn $4 to avoid paying a $5 debt to my friend we're collectively poorer overall) but poorer individuals pay their full obligation. The government has no real qualms about bullying an individual over a failure to pay taxes, it's much harder to arrest a corporation. The only real issues I see with that system are hoarding of personal wealth (solved by an inheritance tax) and how to deal with money disappearing and returning from abroad. You'd need multinationals to set up a national company to operate in the US but that's not exactly difficult.
The progressive rate would hit the rich a hell of a lot harder than they're being hit now. Couldn't the wealthy then just avoid taxes by ordering the corporation to retain cash and generate any cash they needed for consumption by borrowing against the value of their assets? Wouldn't that just postpone the tax payments to whenever they sell the assets to cover their loan payment? I don't see the avoiding taxes part of the equation. You couldn't postpone forever, just until you die. Even if you don't consider that an outright avoidance, there's still a tax benefit to the deferment. The plan relies upon someone stupid enough to loan all the rich people enough money to fund their rich lifestyle for their entire lives while never demanding repayment. Wall St They'll consider the loan safe since the wealthy will use their considerable assets as collateral. Bill Gates has $72B in assets. Wouldn't you consider it safe to lend him $5mm so he can go on an awesome vacation? Just have him post $5mm of his assets as collateral. Except he can't do that because it's a personal loan and for him to give you 5m of his assets would need them to first cross the wall to the point where he personally owned the money, rather than him owning a part of Microsoft which is worth money. Instead what he'd have to do is ask for you to give him money uncollateralised based on the promise of repayment someday.
I don't understand your wall...
|
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supports restoring voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their sentences, the Courier-Journal reported Monday.
Speaking at Louisville's Plymouth Community Renewal Center, Paul said he would push for changes to legislation to make it easier for felons to restore their right to vote and own firearms upon completing their sentences. Under current Kentucky law, felons must petition the governor in order to regain these rights.
“I am in favor of letting people get their rights back, the right to vote ... Second Amendment rights, all your rights to come back," Paul said. "I know of one man who 30-some-odd years ago had pot plants in his closet in college, got a felony conviction in college, still can’t vote, and it’s plagued him his whole life trying to get work."
Paul linked felon voting rights to the problem of disenfranchisement in African-American communities.
"One in three young black males has been convicted of a felony and they’ve lost their voting rights. I think it dwarfs all other (election-related) issues," Paul said, according to WFPL.
Paul said he plans to reach out to state legislators on the matter, particularly Republicans who have opposed such legislation in the past.
As the Washington Post notes, most states ultimately restore felons' right to vote after leaving prison. Some states restore the right following probation and/or parole. Kentucky, however, is one of 12 states with more restrictive laws on the books.
A poll conducted earlier this year found that 51 percent of Kentucky voters would support an amendment to the state constitution allowing felons to regain their voting rights, while 38 percent oppose.
Source
|
United States7684 Posts
On September 18 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supports restoring voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their sentences, the Courier-Journal reported Monday.
Speaking at Louisville's Plymouth Community Renewal Center, Paul said he would push for changes to legislation to make it easier for felons to restore their right to vote and own firearms upon completing their sentences. Under current Kentucky law, felons must petition the governor in order to regain these rights.
“I am in favor of letting people get their rights back, the right to vote ... Second Amendment rights, all your rights to come back," Paul said. "I know of one man who 30-some-odd years ago had pot plants in his closet in college, got a felony conviction in college, still can’t vote, and it’s plagued him his whole life trying to get work."
Paul linked felon voting rights to the problem of disenfranchisement in African-American communities.
"One in three young black males has been convicted of a felony and they’ve lost their voting rights. I think it dwarfs all other (election-related) issues," Paul said, according to WFPL.
Paul said he plans to reach out to state legislators on the matter, particularly Republicans who have opposed such legislation in the past.
As the Washington Post notes, most states ultimately restore felons' right to vote after leaving prison. Some states restore the right following probation and/or parole. Kentucky, however, is one of 12 states with more restrictive laws on the books.
A poll conducted earlier this year found that 51 percent of Kentucky voters would support an amendment to the state constitution allowing felons to regain their voting rights, while 38 percent oppose. Source
Never let it be said that Rand Paul was 100% wrong about everything.
|
On September 18 2013 07:49 sam!zdat wrote:
I don't understand you point at all
says law doesn't work for anything, not even liberals think that anymore, the 19th century called it wants its political economy back
No... you're just not calculating cost and value of labor correctly.
inb4 you post some iron law of wages nonsense.
|
I really have no idea what you are saying. Are you one of these austrian people or smth
|
On September 18 2013 07:34 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote:
yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake Say's law doesn't work for labor because of the costs of hiring are not only limited to the salary paid to the worker. Also, labor on its own has to bring some kind of value for the employer. If the only value that an employer can receive from a particular person's labor is being brought coffee then that person could possibly snag this job for an appropriate wage of $0.10/hour. edit: In short, Say's law DOES work.
Say's Law doesn't work for anything. There's no reason to think it does. It's just a economic fallacy.
I am just as confused as sam as to why you are pushing discredited 19th century economics.
|
On September 18 2013 08:39 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 07:34 Kiarip wrote:On September 17 2013 06:44 sam!zdat wrote:
yes kwark thinks that a supply of workers will create its own demand for workers. So therefore there can never be a glut of labor, in the same way that say's law says there can never be a general glut of commodities
no reasonable person has believed says law since the publication of capital vol 1 but liberals can be a bit slow on the uptake Say's law doesn't work for labor because of the costs of hiring are not only limited to the salary paid to the worker. Also, labor on its own has to bring some kind of value for the employer. If the only value that an employer can receive from a particular person's labor is being brought coffee then that person could possibly snag this job for an appropriate wage of $0.10/hour. edit: In short, Say's law DOES work. Say's Law doesn't work for anything. There's no reason to think it does. It's just a economic fallacy. I am just as confused as sam as to why you are pushing discredited 19th century economics.
How so?
Supply, or existence of a good allows for the marketplace to determine its value, which then establishes a quantifiable demand curve.
Are you suggesting that it works the other way around?
|
oh god
where did you learn to think like that
you think these demand curves and stuff exist in reality. Not even jonny is as reified as that
|
On September 18 2013 09:00 sam!zdat wrote:
oh god
where did you learn to think like that
you think these demand curves and stuff exist in reality. Not even jonny is as reified as that
they don't. but represent something that does, can you please stop arguing semantics and present an actual argument? Although you haven't done that even once in this thread as far as I've seen so I may be wasting my time.
|
On September 18 2013 08:16 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) supports restoring voting rights for convicted felons who have completed their sentences, the Courier-Journal reported Monday.
Speaking at Louisville's Plymouth Community Renewal Center, Paul said he would push for changes to legislation to make it easier for felons to restore their right to vote and own firearms upon completing their sentences. Under current Kentucky law, felons must petition the governor in order to regain these rights.
“I am in favor of letting people get their rights back, the right to vote ... Second Amendment rights, all your rights to come back," Paul said. "I know of one man who 30-some-odd years ago had pot plants in his closet in college, got a felony conviction in college, still can’t vote, and it’s plagued him his whole life trying to get work."
Paul linked felon voting rights to the problem of disenfranchisement in African-American communities.
"One in three young black males has been convicted of a felony and they’ve lost their voting rights. I think it dwarfs all other (election-related) issues," Paul said, according to WFPL.
Paul said he plans to reach out to state legislators on the matter, particularly Republicans who have opposed such legislation in the past.
As the Washington Post notes, most states ultimately restore felons' right to vote after leaving prison. Some states restore the right following probation and/or parole. Kentucky, however, is one of 12 states with more restrictive laws on the books.
A poll conducted earlier this year found that 51 percent of Kentucky voters would support an amendment to the state constitution allowing felons to regain their voting rights, while 38 percent oppose. Source Never let it be said that Rand Paul was 100% wrong about everything.
I have no problem with felons voting, but I would rather not make it easier for a convicted felon to own a fire arm. So just 99% wrong about everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
