|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 11:28:54 [Permalink]
|
Val wrote: Bullshit fucking response, marf.
Your proposal goes far beyond equality into special perks land. |
Why? And you call my response bullshit. I'd respond further, but you haven't really said anything here, so anything I'd respond to would be me guessing at what you mean. I disagree with you that these are perks. I think I've articulated pretty clearly how I've concluded that women are at a special disadvantage for earning potential because of child care needs in modern society.
| Way to miss the point, marf. |
Oh, what, your silly point that in taking actions to deal with one social ill we are likely to cause or exacerbate other social ills? Yes, I know that. That's how progress works. Of course it is going to be two steps forward one step back along the way. What do you think women's lib did to a living wage? Women's lib fucking poured a huge number of job seekers into the worldforce, depressing wages and giving way more power to employers to take advantage of workers. Does that mean that women's liberation was a bad idea and should never have happened? Some people have certainly argued that.
| Point is that the solution you have makes the situation worse by giving corporations a rationalization why they can abuse people more. |
And you have yet to give your solution as to how to raise wages so that families can live on a single income, and you have also not given any solution as to the problem that even if wages increase, if they increase primarily for the parents who works (almost always the father) it continues to put the parent who stays home at a disadvantage should a divorce ever occur. So really, the source of the problem is not only lack of enough jobs that pay a living wage, but also the high divorce rate and the problem that single parents (or ones who will eventually be single again) who make career and income sacrifices for the sake of better child-rearing are hurting themselves financially. This doesn't seem quite fair or good for society as a whole since such parents are doing a service to society - they are raising the children. How well children are raised certainly has an impact on society as a whole.
| Source for the $11 million number? |
I read it some mainstream publication, so I Googled it and I am mistaken. That must have been the number for the CEOs of the largest companies in the USA. The closest I can find to what I think I read is this, which puts average salary for the 350 largest companies in the USA at 9.3 million. The website payscale has this as average for all CEOs. Still significantly more than what they have listed as the income for the average software engineer/developer/programmer. You should be able to look up the salaries of at least the top-paid officers of your company. I believe for profits have to make that information accessible to the public.
| Bullshit, marf. Why should they expect something no one else is getting. |
First of all, expecting and fighting for are two different things. Second of all, you really want to claim that nobody in the economic landscape has come out of the economic downturn either unscathed or even financially better off? You really want to claim that we are all suffering to a proportionately equal degree?
| Then why did the fuckers cite that they needed newer trucks because theirs were 2 years old in the paper? |
WTF, Val? Am I really supposed to be able to comment on out of context specifics about a local issue you know all about when I don't? You now seem like you are just blowing off steam about something personal.
| I have zero confidence that this will be an early childhood education. It'll be more like incarceration for toddlers. |
Based on what?
| Some parents can stay home. |
Women. Far and away it will be women who do so for both biological and cultural and economic reasons. And then when they get divorced (as a huge portion of people with children do) daddy gets to earn more and mommy is financially screwed. Hoorah.
| Have the local community come up with a solution that it tailored to the needs of that community and is sustainable locally. |
Given how segregated our society is based on income, that is a shitty ass solution.
| If you insist on federalizing this perk, then what federal program are you willing to terminate to get it. |
Personally I think we spend way too money on our military. We get involved in military interventions that don't really make our country more safe, and veterans have an even higher unemployment rate than the population at large, which tells me that the military isn't even providing a good career or career training except for the people who already had either an intellectual or middle class advantage.
| Make it revenue neutral and I'll listen. Otherwise, you just want to pile on another tax to encourage people to be dependent on the federal government. |
You haven't once commented on the idea of additional tax brackets at the top since our current tax brackets are way out of date and reflect a very dated income levels and income disparity. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2011 : 11:34:20 [Permalink]
|
Nobody commented on the idea of instead compensating people who do the currently unpaid work of child-rearing. That would also solve the disadvantage to women who temporarily leave or cut back on career to rear children.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2011 : 12:10:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: Bullshit fucking response, marf.
Your proposal goes far beyond equality into special perks land. |
Why? And you call my response bullshit. I'd respond further, but you haven't really said anything here, so anything I'd respond to would be me guessing at what you mean. I disagree with you that these are perks. I think I've articulated pretty clearly how I've concluded that women are at a special disadvantage for earning potential because of child care needs in modern society. |
I don't recognize that as a special disadvantage. You can say the same for anyone with kids. It's the price for having them, not a disadvantage.
| Way to miss the point, marf. |
Oh, what, your silly point that in taking actions to deal with one social ill we are likely to cause or exacerbate other social ills? Yes, I know that. That's how progress works. Of course it is going to be two steps forward one step back along the way. What do you think women's lib did to a living wage? Women's lib fucking poured a huge number of job seekers into the worldforce, depressing wages and giving way more power to employers to take advantage of workers. Does that mean that women's liberation was a bad idea and should never have happened? Some people have certainly argued that. |
So we should all be completely broke. Hey. What progress there. Women's lib didn't come with an additional tax bill.
| Point is that the solution you have makes the situation worse by giving corporations a rationalization why they can abuse people more. |
And you have yet to give your solution as to how to raise wages so that families can live on a single income, and you have also not given any solution as to the problem that even if wages increase, if they increase primarily for the parents who works (almost always the father) it continues to put the parent who stays home at a disadvantage should a divorce ever occur. So really, the source of the problem is not only lack of enough jobs that pay a living wage, but also the high divorce rate and the problem that single parents (or ones who will eventually be single again) who make career and income sacrifices for the sake of better child-rearing are hurting themselves financially. This doesn't seem quite fair or good for society as a whole since such parents are doing a service to society - they are raising the children. How well children are raised certainly has an impact on society as a whole. |
Life isn't fair. By reducing the cost of living to a more reasonable level than it currently is now, current wages can cover most problems.
A short term release of the strategic oil reserves into the market could definately get the oil company's attention. Requiring all people in the commodities market to take delivery of the product that they buy would also reduce that speculation. Cutting nice to have programs such as foreign aid, all farming subsidies for farms over 300 acres, legalizing the growth and consumption of cannabis and regulating the sale of its smokable/edible product on par with alcohol, gasoline price oversight, and Banking reform.
| Source for the $11 million number? |
I read it some mainstream publication, so I Googled it and I am mistaken. That must have been the number for the CEOs of the largest companies in the USA. The closest I can find to what I think I read is this, which puts average salary for the 350 largest companies in the USA at 9.3 million. The website payscale has this as average for all CEOs. Still significantly more than what they have listed as the income for the average software engineer/developer/programmer. You should be able to look up the salaries of at least the top-paid officers of your company. I believe for profits have to make that information accessible to the public. |
My CEO's salary is about 4 times mine. He is the top paid. We are talking sub-$400,000 per year. Since we are publically traded, it's a matter of record in the 10-Q filings and yearly reports.
| Bullshit, marf. Why should they expect something no one else is getting. |
First of all, expecting and fighting for are two different things. Second of all, you really want to claim that nobody in the economic landscape has come out of the economic downturn either unscathed or even financially better off? You really want to claim that we are all suffering to a proportionately equal degree?
| Then why did the fuckers cite that they needed newer trucks because theirs were 2 years old in the paper? |
WTF, Val? Am I really supposed to be able to comment on out of context specifics about a local issue you know all about when I don't? You now seem like you are just blowing off steam about something personal. |
They were demanding 10% raises and guaranteed work. Not even school teachers got that out here.
| I have zero confidence that this will be an early childhood education. It'll be more like incarceration for toddlers. |
Based on what? |
Past history of government programs.
| Some parents can stay home. |
Women. Far and away it will be women who do so for both biological and cultural and economic reasons. And then when they get divorced (as a huge portion of people with children do) daddy gets to earn more and mommy is financially screwed. Hoorah. |
Life is not fair. You also ignore when the divorce happens and the daddy gets custody. Mommy gets child support. (we'll set aside the small percentage of deadbeat dads here. Life isn't fair.)
| Have the local community come up with a solution that it tailored to the needs of that community and is sustainable locally. |
Given how segregated our society is based on income, that is a shitty ass solution. |
Gee, in Illinois if a southside Chicago neighborhood wants to do a program like this, they just implement it and pass the cost on to the state. Its why the rest of the state is beginning to consider seccession from Illinois and letting Cook (aka Crook) County stand or fall on it's own.
| If you insist on federalizing this perk, then what federal program are you willing to terminate to get it. |
Personally I think we spend way too money on our military. We get involved in military interventions that don't really make our country more safe, and veterans have an even higher unemployment rate than the population at large, which tells me that the military isn't even providing a good career or career training except for the people who already had either an intellectual or middle class advantage. |
What gets cut from the military? How many divisions? Can we afford to considering China's military ramp up?
Any non-military programs?
| Make it revenue neutral and I'll listen. Otherwise, you just want to pile on another tax to encourage people to be dependent on the federal government. |
You haven't once commented on the idea of additional tax brackets at the top since our current tax brackets are way out of date and reflect a very dated income levels and income disparity.
|
Because the problem is that you see taking more money from people as the solution. It seems that cuts are not to your liking at all. PAYGO was largely successful and I saw my standard of living improve and the standard of living improve for the working poor while that was being done. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 16:55:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Nobody commented on the idea of instead compensating people who do the currently unpaid work of child-rearing. That would also solve the disadvantage to women who temporarily leave or cut back on career to rear children.
|
So let me get this straight......you want people to get paid for taking care of their own kids? Is that right? |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 18:08:26 [Permalink]
|
Here's the deal. It's a waste of resource, if a mother wants to work, to make it impossible for her to do so. It takes many less people to take care of kids than the almost one on one or one on two that you find at home. And those working woman pay taxes. That's more revenue. Theoretically, the system could almost pay for itself, with the increase in tax revenue. I don't see any particular reason to disadvantage woman or men, just because they want children and a career. I doubt that it would be that costly. It might even be revenue neutral.
And then there is this. I know someone who has a masters degree, and a baby. When she got pregnant and had the baby, she was engaged to be married. But that relationship soured and now, she's a single mom. Sure, that wasn't the plan, but shit happens. She can't afford to get a job and pay for childcare. So she will have to use assistance to get by, which is also paid for by the taxpayer. Wouldn't be better if she were working? Better for everyone? We get jobs created for child care workers, who pay income tax, she pays income tax, and is not getting something for nothing by having to be on welfare. Who do you think pays for her food stamps and other services?
If we really want to live in a civilized society, we need to start acting like it's a civilized society we want to live in. And both healthcare and childcare factor into that. Living in a civilized society means that we recognize that this is the club we want to belong to and there is a fee for membership. Deny that and what we get is what we have. A shrinking middle class and a growing population of poor people. No good will come from what we have now. It will just get worse. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 21:37:37 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote:
So let me get this straight......you want people to get paid for taking care of their own kids? Is that right? |
People are already compensated for caring for their own kids. It's called tax breaks. And yes, that is what I'm suggesting. And arguing for with much of the same logic used to justify tax breaks for parents. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 22:18:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone wrote:
So let me get this straight......you want people to get paid for taking care of their own kids? Is that right? |
People are already compensated for caring for their own kids. It's called tax breaks. And yes, that is what I'm suggesting. And arguing for with much of the same logic used to justify tax breaks for parents.
|
Except those tax breaks are phased out over revenue levels. Even in my tax bracket, I don't get the full tax credit. Also, we are talking apples and bananas. The tax credits amount to tax reductions (except in the case where no tax is owed) for tax refunds. Returning the money the parent has already paid to the government for many programs. Even $1,000 per year per child is not nearly the amount you are requesting.
It is significantly higher. You keep pushing additional tax brackets for the rich as a first resort instead of looking at things to cut. The national wallet is empty and the government keeps spending more. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 06:30:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Ebone wrote:
So let me get this straight......you want people to get paid for taking care of their own kids? Is that right? |
People are already compensated for caring for their own kids. It's called tax breaks. And yes, that is what I'm suggesting. And arguing for with much of the same logic used to justify tax breaks for parents.
|
So you are again asking for something that already exists. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 06:44:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
| If we really want to live in a civilized society, we need to start acting like it's a civilized society we want to live in. And both healthcare and childcare factor into that. Living in a civilized society means that we recognize that this is the club we want to belong to and there is a fee for membership. Deny that and what we get is what we have. A shrinking middle class and a growing population of poor people. No good will come from what we have now. It will just get worse. |
I guess I don't want to live in a civilized society then. If you want me to pay for other people's choices then I should get some say in those choices. And yes, I do see wanting to have children as a choice. Marf seems to think that other people having children is some how doing me some sort of big favor so I should be happy to pay for it.
It's two competing ideologies. Do we want the freedom to do as we please or do we want a communal society. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we can't have both.
All I want is to be able to sing my little songs without having my pocket picked. I promise that I won't ask for anything from anyone in return. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 06:55:31 [Permalink]
|
Ebone wrote:
So you are again asking for something that already exists. |
So if I give my kid a grape for dinner and she asks for more, it makes sense to respond: "No. You are asking for something I already gave you." Obviously I'm saying that the current benefits for parents are insufficient, and I'm further pointing out that the existence of those benefits in the first place shows that we live in a society that takes on some of the responsibility of ensuring that children in general are cared for and that the people who do the work of taking care of them are compensated.
| I guess I don't want to live in a civilized society then. |
You said it first. ;-)
| If you want me to pay for other people's choices then I should get some say in those choices. And yes, I do see wanting to have children as a choice. Marf seems to think that other people having children is some how doing me some sort of big favor so I should be happy to pay for it. |
No. I'm saying that people will have children and when they are all sufficiently cared for that benefits everyone, including you. And actually this thread has more been about compensating parents in a way that sexual equality is better achieved and we have increase productivity. Kil pointed out how the increase in productivity can benefit all of society. The sexual equality stuff definitely more helps women, and might even hurt men in the sense that it reduces their advantages over women.
| It's two competing ideologies. Do we want the freedom to do as we please or do we want a communal society. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we can't have both. |
Oh, we can't have a balance? It's gotta be completely one or the other? Because I'm pretty sure that if we look at different developed nations they ALL strike a balance between the two.
| All I want is to be able to sing my little songs without having my pocket picked. I promise that I won't ask for anything from anyone in return. |
So you don't use and don't want the benefits of government regulation of food and drugs, firefighters, police, military, public libraries, public schools, roads, jails, social workers, public grants for scientific and medical research, and a thousand other things that touch American's lives on a daily basis. Suuuure. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 07:02:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Except those tax breaks are phased out over revenue levels. Even in my tax bracket, I don't get the full tax credit. Also, we are talking apples and bananas. The tax credits amount to tax reductions (except in the case where no tax is owed) for tax refunds. Returning the money the parent has already paid to the government for many programs. Even $1,000 per year per child is not nearly the amount you are requesting. |
The per-dependent-child standard deduction is $3,650 this year and everyone gets it. The extra $1,000 child tax credit does phase out at higher incomes, but that just makes it progressive like much of the rest of our tax structure.| It is significantly higher. You keep pushing additional tax brackets for the rich as a first resort instead of looking at things to cut. The national wallet is empty and the government keeps spending more. |
We are one of the least-taxed nations in the developed world. The national wallet would be much fatter if people quit complaining about how much they need to pay in taxes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 07:09:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
If you want me to pay for other people's choices then I should get some say in those choices. |
What do you think your government representatives are for?It's two competing ideologies. Do we want the freedom to do as we please or do we want a communal society. It is becoming increasingly apparent that we can't have both.
All I want is to be able to sing my little songs without having my pocket picked. |
It's only a dilemma if you consider taxation to be theft. And if that is how you think of it, then you surely can find a country to live in which won't steal from you. Obviously not Europe, since they tend to have much higher taxation than we do (but still seem to be able to do as they please, go figure). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 07:14:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
Except those tax breaks are phased out over revenue levels. Even in my tax bracket, I don't get the full tax credit. Also, we are talking apples and bananas. The tax credits amount to tax reductions (except in the case where no tax is owed) for tax refunds. Returning the money the parent has already paid to the government for many programs. Even $1,000 per year per child is not nearly the amount you are requesting. |
The per-dependent-child standard deduction is $3,650 this year and everyone gets it. The extra $1,000 child tax credit does phase out at higher incomes, but that just makes it progressive like much of the rest of our tax structure. |
That's a deduction to income. It translates to a couple of bucks off on the tax.
| It is significantly higher. You keep pushing additional tax brackets for the rich as a first resort instead of looking at things to cut. The national wallet is empty and the government keeps spending more. |
We are one of the least-taxed nations in the developed world. The national wallet would be much fatter if people quit complaining about how much they need to pay in taxes.
|
Except it cost so fucking much to live here. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 08:23:26 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
That's a deduction to income. It translates to a couple of bucks off on the tax. |
35% of $3,650 is a tax savings of $1,277.50, or more than the child tax credit for high income people. At an overall tax rate of 27.4%, the $3,650 deduction equals the child tax credit's base amount. But even in the 15% tax bracket, it's a tax reduction of $548, which is more than a 10% reduction in total tax for a married couple with an AGI of $40K. The standard deduction doesn't become pocket change until you're making millions.| Except it cost so fucking much to live here. |
What's cheaper about living elsewhere? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 09/15/2011 : 08:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
No. I'm saying that people will have children and when they are all sufficiently cared for that benefits everyone, including you. And actually this thread has more been about compensating parents in a way that sexual equality is better achieved and we have increase productivity. Kil pointed out how the increase in productivity can benefit all of society. The sexual equality stuff definitely more helps women, and might even hurt men in the sense that it reduces their advantages over women.
|
Dammit, I've been trying to avoid it because I've been trying to convince myself that I am just misunderstanding..but what you, Kil, and even Dave to some extent are advocating is pure socialism. Socialism is where everyone shares everything equally no matter how hard each individual works. I'm just not buying into it. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Day Care Should Be Free
