Wisconsin in the news

[_Eric]

That's not quite what I had in mind at that point though. I'm saying that even if we tax the obscene wealth of the top 1%, we should be willing to make similar sacrifices.

What would you propose as a sacrifice that is comparable to not making 600 times more than the average worker?

The fact is, I feel like I'm living a pretty good life despite the obscene wealth of billionaire bankers.

Right. Me too. But there are people all over the world that are living in horrendous, disgusting poverty despite the obscene wealth of the billionaire bankers.

I don't feel right forcing my morals on them--not without being willing to make similar sacrifices myself.

Well, you can also agree to stop exploiting poor people if it makes you feel better.

Oh, and I don't have an iPhone. I'm more of an Android person myself.

iPhone sucks these days anyways.

[_bcspace]

The bottom line here is that "collective bargaining" is a misnomer in this context. Public employees are not bargaining with other public employees. Since the way to control government is to control it's spending, one should never expect "living" wages as a government employee much less that to equal the private sector.

[_asbestosman]

What would you propose as a sacrifice that is comparable to not making 600 times more than the average worker?

My standard for politics is different than yours, so that question is irrelevant to me. The sacrifice I had in mind would be to tax a similar percentage of income, and remove the tax havens only the wealthy can access so it's more equal.

Right. Me too. But there are people all over the world that are living in horrendous, disgusting poverty despite the obscene wealth of the billionaire bankers.

So let's all pay together. I could honestly live on half of what I make if that's what it takes to likewise tax the wealth of billionaire bankers to meet those needs. I'm only willing to tax them as much as I'm willing to be taxed. It's the golden rule--sort of.

Well, you can also agree to stop exploiting poor people if it makes you feel better.

It wouldn't make me feel any better about forcing my morals on the rich, no.

iPhone sucks these days anyways.

Good to hear, but news of its demise is likely exaggerated sine it is still very popular. Of course, I think that's the problem. Hard to set yourself apart when everyone and their dogs have iPhones. The data congestion doesn't help either--one reason I don't want AT&T even with Android.

[_asbestosman]

Since the way to control government is to control it's spending, one should never expect "living" wages as a government employee much less that to equal the private sector.

Are you saying that nobody should work for the government because one should expect the government to pay you pennies if you're lucky enough to get any pay at all?

So, how much should we pay our military again?

[_Eric]

Since the way to control government is to control it's spending, one should never expect "living" wages as a government employee much less that to equal the private sector.

Do you feel the same way about police officers? Probably not...

[_Eric]

What would you propose as a sacrifice that is comparable to not making 600 times more than the average worker?

My standard for politics is different than yours, so that question is irrelevant to me. The sacrifice I had in mind would be to tax a similar percentage of income, and remove the tax havens only the wealthy can access so it's more equal.

Do you believe that someone making $12,000 a year deserves to be taxed the same as someone making $70,000,000 a year? I sure don't.

So let's all pay together. I could honestly live on half of what I make if that's what it takes to likewise tax the wealth of billionaire bankers to meet those needs.

I would also agree to live on half of what I make if it meant the end of poverty. The rich, however, wouldn't.

I'm only willing to tax them as much as I'm willing to be taxed. It's the golden rule--sort of.

Well, I think at a certain point this becomes unreasonable. Billionaires can still be billionaires after being taxed 80% of their income. I know working class people that could not survive on 20% of their paycheck.

Well, you can also agree to stop exploiting poor people if it makes you feel better.

It wouldn't make me feel any better about forcing my morals on the rich, no.

Why do you hold the rich in such high regard? What's wrong with forcing these very simple "morals" on people like my old boss, Angelo Mozillo?

iPhone sucks these days anyways.

The data congestion doesn't help either--one reason I don't want AT&T even with Android.[/quote]

I think the iPhone met its demise when AT&T started limiting data usage. I've always had a jailbroken iPhone, which makes things much better, but AT&T is a real drag.

[_asbestosman]

Do you believe that someone making $12,000 a year deserves to be taxed the same as someone making $70,000,000 a year? I sure don't.

Me either. I had in mind middle-class people with sufficient. People like me.

I would also agree to live on half of what I make if it meant the end of poverty. The rich, however, wouldn't.

I don't think it would mean the end of poverty. However, if it would, I would support it if we the people voted on it and agreed to it. If it's constitutional (I believe it is), and isn't something I'm unwilling to have happen to me, then I'll support it. I will also support funding programs we vote for but which I think are a bad idea. One example of that is a light rail project which I think is going down the wrong streets. I'll protest it while I can, but I will still fork over my taxes if we decide to go through with it and will quit speaking against it once the final decision is made.

Well, I think at a certain point this becomes unreasonable. Billionaires can still be billionaires after being taxed 80% of their income. I know working class people that could not survive on 20% of their paycheck.

That is true. Perhaps percentage of income isn't the proper measure. I certainly don't feel right taxing the working class much if at all when they have a hard time buying healthy food and keeping their homes in good repair but away from the repro man. However, the basic principle I believe in is that I should not make the rich bear a tax burden which I wouldn't want or would be unwilling to bear.

You and I are considered obscenely wealthy compared to people in, say, Haiti. I wouldn't like it if they got to set taxes and taxed me until I was what they considered rich but not obscenely wealthy.

It wouldn't make me feel any better about forcing my morals on the rich, no.

Why do you hold the rich in such high regard? What's wrong with forcing these very simple "morals" on people like my old boss, Angelo Mozillo?

The rich are people too. As much as I don't like it, I think people have the right to be rude and uncaring to each other. If we want to start forcing people to be nice to each other, then maybe we should force people to smile at each other, stop rickrolling each other, stop gossiping about and making fun of each other at school. Oh, and we can force people to stop saying rude things about other people's religion. Simon Belmont would like that one. I wouldn't mind it either.

Furthermore, I think many wealthy people are good people. Two of the wealthiest people in our country are also big philanthropists. I would rather let them donate to causes as they see fit over taking it from them and giving it to causes we like. Maybe some of their causes aren't the absolute best, but I do appreciate that they are trying and I like letting them have that feeling of accomplishment at doing it voluntarily instead of resentment from being forced into it.

But again, I'm not against raising their taxes if I make a sacrifice too.

I think the iPhone met its demise when AT&T started limiting data usage. I've always had a jailbroken iPhone, which makes things much better, but AT&T is a real drag.

True, but I did prefer AT&T's customer service and cell coverage to Sprint. Maybe I just got lucky though.

[_EAllusion]

It isn't obvious why a flat tax would be more fair than a progressive tax. I get the intuitive idea. A flat tax treats everyone equally, right? But the progressive tax was devised to treat everyone equally as well. It's just that the criterion for equality in that instance is ability to pay. Those who earn more pay a higher % because they are better able to afford it. Without endorsing that notion, I think you should see it more as competing ideas about what sort of equality matters. For a comparison, imagine if instead of a flat tax, the government instead charged a flat fee on income. The government keeps your first 10k dollars and you get the rest. The effect of this would be brutally regressive on the poor, but it is treating everyone equal. It's more equal than the flat tax if you pick "dollars contributed" as your criterion for equality. So is it more fair? I'm doubtful you'd say yes.

(I support a value added consumption tax to replace the income tax, so I'm off in right field on this one.)

[_EAllusion]

The bottom line here is that "collective bargaining" is a misnomer in this context. Public employees are not bargaining with other public employees.

Huh? Collective bargaining just refers to workers associating with one another and agreeing to make the same demands of an employer or walk together. - i.e. forming a union. It's a way of leveraging their value. One worker's labor typically isn't worth a lot against an employer's interests, but a collective of workers' labor is.

Since the way to control government is to control it's spending, one should never expect "living" wages as a government employee much less that to equal the private sector.

Heh. Government employees shouldn't even make a living wage? I'm sure that'll draw in talent to perform government functions. I sure know I'd be chomping at the bit to spend tens of thousands of dollars and years and years of schooling to make minimum wage.

[_EAllusion]

So, how much should we pay our military again?

I'm sure he'd make an exception for any profession conservatives traditionally have a hard on for. To the point that you don't even need to ask.