Another amazing piece on the looting of America — for what result? Just another exercise in frustration as long as nobody is minding the Congressional store; no national legislators are waiting with open ears to nurture the average persons’ deepest needs.
ONLY ultimate answer: legally mandated, centralized bargaining — supplying as much or more campaign finance as anyone else (even more than when US union density was “only” 35%!) and equal numbers of lobbying pests to go with our 99% of the vote. What would Jimmy Hoffa say — what else could he say?
Corporate income taxes are the result of stupidity and greed.
We waste millions of dollars every year computing corporate income taxes and millions more making sub-optimal business decisions because “optimal” has to consider tax ramifications. Some of the greatest intellects hired by corporations are wasted computing and avoiding corporate income taxes instead of improving products and processes.
Corporate income taxes should be COMPLETELY eliminated, and ALL income — wages, dividends, and capital gains — should be taxed at the same rate.
Then we will see corporations fighting to come here instead of fighting to leave.
I’d like to believe that corporations are smart enough to see the advantages of taxing ONLY corporations. Of course they would be free to pass the tax through to their customers, but that would only put the cost of their product at what people thought it was worth paying for.
Meanwhile since the tax would be applied to all corporations, there would be no differential advantage and so nothing for the corps to complain about… the tax would be like gravity and friction, just a fact of nature and a cost of doing business.
Then we could stop playing games with taxes and people could get back to thinking about other things. Presumably their prices would be higher and possibly their wages would be lower, but they wouldn’t be paying any taxes, so their standard of living would be unchanged.
“‘Despite the claims of corporate apologists, international business ‘competitiveness’ has nothing to do with the reasons for these deals,’” Edward D. Kleinbard writes. ‘Whether one measures effective marginal or overall tax rates, sophisticated U.S. multinational firms are burdened by tax rates that are the envy of their international peers.’”
Sorkin counters; “What? We’ve been told repeatedly that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world — 35 percent — which is higher than the nominal tax rates in places like Ireland (12.5 percent), Britain (21 percent) and the Netherlands (25 percent) and the 24.1 percent average rate of all countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”
Sorkin goes on with Kleinbard’s points. “All that is true,” contends Professor Kleinbard; however, “most United States multinational companies do not pay anywhere near 35 percent. Companies paid an average 12.6 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office, which last measured it in 2010 and avoid taxes by deliberately stashing piles of cash abroad.”
Norway has a much higher corporate tax rate. They have a balanced budget and single payer health insurance.
Something tells me that taxing corporations is not such a big problem, based on the evidence. I understand that the religion of the TEAsheeple teaches otherwise, though.
I have no idea what you mean by “intellectual capital” but one of the advantages of a corporations only tax is that corporations can afford the accountants to keep track of the tax rules. And they should be smart enough to know what taxes are for. So in their patriotic love of their country they should be glad to pay all the taxes needed, as long as they don’t suffer a competitive disadvantage and as long as they end up with the same money in the end as they had in the first place.
Yep, you are correct, two Jacks now. I was waiting to see you answer on new Jack commenting on Social Security robbing the young. You are more adept on SS issues than I.
> I have no idea what you mean by “intellectual capital” …
In this context — the brainpower of the employees.
> Strangely enough, Norway’s corporations paid taxes of 12.5% of
> Norway’s GDP. US Corps are under 2%.
I do note that the year chosen was 2008, when U.S. companies were suffering huge losses in the recession. In fact, net corporate income was down 46% from 2007. Cherry-picking the data, perhaps?
So what? Any tax paid by the corporations will result in lower wages to employees, lower returns to investors, or higher prices to customers. So why not just tax the money when it gets to the individual, and tax it all at the same rate?
Companies could move those intelligent people out of the tax departments, and into improving products and processes. Business decisions would be made on business considerations, not tax considerations, companies would move operations here to take advantage of the better tax environment.
As you point out, it would not be much revenue lost anyway.
You want to shout your ideology, feel free. Just do not start off with talking about high tax rates that do not exist before you do it. We have one of the lowest effective tax rates in the civilized world, yet somehow we have seen no evidence of “companies would move operations here to take advantage of the better tax environment.”
“So why not just tax the money when it gets to the individual, and tax it all at the same rate?”
Cause taxing labor over capital has the obvious effects, and they certainly are not the ones your ideology states.
i pointed out in my modest proposal that taxing corporations only would result in higher prices or lower wages but that wouldn’t matter because the people would not be paying any tax so their “net income” would remain the same. Similarly, since the corps would be passing through the cost of their taxes, their net income would remain the same.
The only change would be that corporation accountants would figure their taxes…. as they do today… but the average citizen would not have to hire an accountant to figure his taxes as he does today.
Moreover, since corporations are smarter than people, they would know where their taxes were going and be harder to snow by the politicians. And if the tax were reasonably straightforward, the corps COULD concentrate on “business” knowing their tax would be a fair simple percentage of their honest profit.
No doubt there are consequences I haven’t thought of, but it doesn’t seem to me you have allowed yourself to even think about the possibilities… responding with the one-liners that right-winger throw out every time corporations are asked to pay any taxes at all.
> We have one of the lowest effective tax rates in the civilized world…
How, exactly, do you define an “effective” tax rate?
> [Taxing] labor over capital has the obvious effects….
Except for real estate, cars, and boats, we don’t tax capital at all, and those taxes are completely separate from income taxes and payroll taxes. So what are you talking about?
You’re missing the key issue, Coberly — the wastefulness of needing accountants to compute taxes, and that brainpower can be put to productive use.
If corporations are not taxed, then they will not need people to compute, and to figure out ways to avoid, those taxes. If ALL personal income is taxed at the same rate, whether it comes from dividends, capital gains, or wages, without deductions, then individuals won’t need accountants to figure out their taxes, either.
“[That] is YOUR key issue. it is not one of the issues faced by most people.”
While true that this is not an issue that most people face, it is an issue that they should face, because EVERYONE is paying for that waste in higher prices.
Optimizing business efficiency IS the purpose of most businesses.
If you wish to pay more than you are charged, very few businesses will complain. Go ahead, tip the burger flipper if you want to. Put your own money where your mouth is.
I don’t even go into “fast food” places. I worked in one once.
And while I understand that it is the business of business to make the most profit they can, it is the business of society to see that that doesn’t turn into a hell on earth.
There is no doubt that “free competition” will push labor to survival wages and below. The history of politics and economics since that became obvious a couple of hundred years ago has been how to balance the benefits of free competition with the requirements of decency and public order…
it is okay with me if you can’t understand that. i don’t expect the prize bull in the farmyard, who makes the farmers money for him, to understand the need for fences. but neither do i enjoy listening to the bull explain profoundly the great riches that would come to me if i only took down the fences.
It is only with the advent of capitalism that the majority of people have had a way to get above survival living.
Unskilled labor will always be at or below survival wages. Why? Because when unskilled labor demands more, they will be replaced by those who are not working at all, or by machines. The Minimum Wage has been pushed to the point that bank tellers have been replaced by ATM’s and grocery clerks have been replaced by self-checkout lines.
The way up and out is to develop a marketable skill.
You do not even seem to understand that when the price of something increases, less of that thing is purchased. That includes unskilled labor. That is why so many people lost their jobs when the Minimum Wage went up in 2007.
I am not OK with your not understanding that, because public policies that try to fight that reality are damaging.
If you care about the poor, donate to charities that help the poor. There is NOTHING that public policy can do that we do not already have charities to address. If you disagree, then form a charity to fill whatever gap you see.
unfortunately you have an ideology that answers every question and leads you back into the same blind alley. it is indeed called hell by those who concern themselves with hell has a real “situation” if not place, without regard to a particular theology.
we have the world we have. not a primitive or even medieval village where people naturally take care of each other, and where, by the way, there was no “below survival” wage.
there is nothing natural about low wages being “what the work is worth.” the wages are low because that’s what the employer can get away with as long as there are people who can’t find other work.. whatever their skills are. this is a problem that seems to come in cycles…. call the business cycle for some reason. the rich always survive business cycles, the poor often die, or did before the people… by means of government… began to find ways to help them through the bad times. turns out this was good for business too, but the right wing businessman is too dumb to understand that.
if workers could organize and demand a higher wage the rest of us would have to pay a little more and maybe buy a little less. not so much less that we would even notice it, but there is no reason the lady who cleans your rest room should not make as much money for her time as you do for yours… if you had to spend the time cleaning the rest room THAT would be the opportunity cost of the job.
the only reason you can pay her less is political, not economic.
by the way, i ran a small business once, and after being talked to quite sternly by a prospective employee, i paid the help what they were worth (in my time, not what the market would bear) and took home less myself, and was very happy with the arrangement.
‘[There] is no reason the lady who cleans your rest room should not make as much money for her time as you do for yours… if you had to spend the time cleaning the rest room THAT would be the opportunity cost of the job.”
There is a very good reason she is paid less per hour than I am — just about anyone can clean a bathroom, and very few people can do my job. It takes years of training and experience to be able to do what I do. The training is expensive and less than one-third of those who qualify to start the training finish it.
How much training does it take to clean a bathroom?
Some people’s time really is worth more. Even those who clean bathrooms. If one person does it better and faster than another, shouldn’t the faster and better employee be paid more? Should the computer programmer who is slower and makes more mistakes be paid the same per hour as the one who writes twice as much code with half as many errors? Should the grocery clerk who gets through 30 items per minute be paid the same as the one who does only ten?
If everyone were paid the same hourly wage, why would anyone go through the time, trouble, and expense of getting specialized, difficult training?
So you face the same bacterial and disease hazards in your day to day desk position hours on end?
Just about anyone can stand and work on an automotive assembly line 8 hours a day also; but, how long can they continue day after day for years on end. The physical stress on the body begins to take its toll on those who do physical activity as a means of making a living the same as the constant exposure to bacteria and disease which is rampant in areas visited by people utilizing the facility day after day.
While you sit and expend your cranial activities at a desk, those who do physical labor and expose themselves to dangers from the type of work they do are not compensated for it as society does not see a value to it. Yet, the importance of it is the same as your desk jockeying.
“if everyone were paid the same… why would anyone go to the time and trouble to get specialized training?”
answer: because the work is more fun. and the reason you pay your cleaning lady the same as you pay yourself is because the hour she spends cleaning up after you is an hour you can spend doing the work you love.
you assume that “anybody can do it” means the work is worthless. what i have seen is that the work “anybody can do” is the most important work in the world. as you will find when no one wants to pick crops any more and you have to clean your own bathroom.
> the hour she spends cleaning up after you is an hour you can spend doing
> the work you love
Well, then, she must love cleaning bathrooms at the rate of pay she is getting, otherwise she would get trained for a job she like more and that pays better.
> [You] assume that “anybody can do it” means the work is worthless…
like i have said, you can always find a rationalization to justify your greed.
i would assume the lady can NOT learn a more skilled trade… though i have seen ph.d’s doing unskilled labor because the market for their skills is oversupplied and they don’t have another ten years to learn a new “high level” skill.
but no one, whatever their level of skill or ability, should be forced to live in degrading poverty because you can always find someone to do the work cheaper.
we have reached a point where i don’t like you very much. not a good idea for me to continue talking to you.
Is it not greedy on YOUR part to demand a piece of what others have earned?
Why can she not learn a more skilled trade?
I have also seen Ph.D.’s doing unskilled labor. They chose to study what they wanted to study, not what would earn them a living. But those who DID study what would earn them a living should be forced to support those who studied what they WANTED instead?
No-one is FORCING them to do anything. They chose the course of their lives. They studied useless things, or perhaps did not study at all. They slacked off in school, perhaps, and so did not take advantage of the education offered to them.
And I don’t know whether you’ve toured the world much, but we don’t exactly have “degrading poverty” in this country. Is there any other country where the primary health problem of the poor is OBESITY? Our “poor” people eat TOO MUCH!!
The UN defines “extreme poverty” as living on less than $1 per day. How fat can you get on $1 per day?
How Companies Get Rich Off Of Taxes – David Cay Johnston
Another amazing piece on the looting of America — for what result? Just another exercise in frustration as long as nobody is minding the Congressional store; no national legislators are waiting with open ears to nurture the average persons’ deepest needs.
ONLY ultimate answer: legally mandated, centralized bargaining — supplying as much or more campaign finance as anyone else (even more than when US union density was “only” 35%!) and equal numbers of lobbying pests to go with our 99% of the vote. What would Jimmy Hoffa say — what else could he say?
Corporate income taxes are the result of stupidity and greed.
We waste millions of dollars every year computing corporate income taxes and millions more making sub-optimal business decisions because “optimal” has to consider tax ramifications. Some of the greatest intellects hired by corporations are wasted computing and avoiding corporate income taxes instead of improving products and processes.
Corporate income taxes should be COMPLETELY eliminated, and ALL income — wages, dividends, and capital gains — should be taxed at the same rate.
Then we will see corporations fighting to come here instead of fighting to leave.
Jack
so you are in favor of a flat tax?
I’d like to believe that corporations are smart enough to see the advantages of taxing ONLY corporations. Of course they would be free to pass the tax through to their customers, but that would only put the cost of their product at what people thought it was worth paying for.
Meanwhile since the tax would be applied to all corporations, there would be no differential advantage and so nothing for the corps to complain about… the tax would be like gravity and friction, just a fact of nature and a cost of doing business.
Then we could stop playing games with taxes and people could get back to thinking about other things. Presumably their prices would be higher and possibly their wages would be lower, but they wouldn’t be paying any taxes, so their standard of living would be unchanged.
Yes, I am in favor of a flat tax — all income taxed at the same rate, and no deductions.
Taxing corporations is stupid — mostly for the intellectual capital necessary to comply with the law and to reduce the tax burden as much as possible.
Jack:
As published recently:
There is a question as to whether it is for lower corporate taxes or other reasons corporations are attempting to avoid the US corporate income tax. As DealBook Blog founder Andrew Sorkin questions the takeover and quotes Southern California Gould School of Law Prof. and former JCT chief of staff Edward D. Kleinbard in his paper ‘Competitiveness’ Has Nothing To Do With It.
Sorkin counters; “What? We’ve been told repeatedly that the United States has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world — 35 percent — which is higher than the nominal tax rates in places like Ireland (12.5 percent), Britain (21 percent) and the Netherlands (25 percent) and the 24.1 percent average rate of all countries that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.”
Sorkin goes on with Kleinbard’s points. “All that is true,” contends Professor Kleinbard; however, “most United States multinational companies do not pay anywhere near 35 percent. Companies paid an average 12.6 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office, which last measured it in 2010 and avoid taxes by deliberately stashing piles of cash abroad.”
Norway has a much higher corporate tax rate. They have a balanced budget and single payer health insurance.
Something tells me that taxing corporations is not such a big problem, based on the evidence. I understand that the religion of the TEAsheeple teaches otherwise, though.
No, Norway has a LOWER RATE. It was 28% last year, and they dropped it to 27%.
Norway also has a state-owned oil company, Statoil, which provides a significant chunk of the government’s money.
Finally, Norway is not running a balanced budget: http://countryeconomy.com/deficit/norway
This must be a different Jack.
I have no idea what you mean by “intellectual capital” but one of the advantages of a corporations only tax is that corporations can afford the accountants to keep track of the tax rules. And they should be smart enough to know what taxes are for. So in their patriotic love of their country they should be glad to pay all the taxes needed, as long as they don’t suffer a competitive disadvantage and as long as they end up with the same money in the end as they had in the first place.
A flat tax, now, is stupid.
coberly:
Yep, you are correct, two Jacks now. I was waiting to see you answer on new Jack commenting on Social Security robbing the young. You are more adept on SS issues than I.
Strangely enough, Norway’s corporations paid taxes of 12.5% of Norway’s GDP.
US Corps are under 2%.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/are-taxes-in-the-u-s-high-or-low/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
But I love it when people quote the marginal tax rate, which btw, no one person, or no one corporation has ever paid.
E:
I will have to read that economix post later. I just got done posting something from an earlier post of mine on Inversions which you may want to read.
> I have no idea what you mean by “intellectual capital” …
In this context — the brainpower of the employees.
> Strangely enough, Norway’s corporations paid taxes of 12.5% of
> Norway’s GDP. US Corps are under 2%.
I do note that the year chosen was 2008, when U.S. companies were suffering huge losses in the recession. In fact, net corporate income was down 46% from 2007. Cherry-picking the data, perhaps?
Umm, Hack?
Total bs comment. US corporate tax income has not hit 3% of GDP since 1970.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=205
Geez, it is bad enough to be a rwdw, but to post silly comments like this makes you look like an imbecile.
So what? Any tax paid by the corporations will result in lower wages to employees, lower returns to investors, or higher prices to customers. So why not just tax the money when it gets to the individual, and tax it all at the same rate?
Companies could move those intelligent people out of the tax departments, and into improving products and processes. Business decisions would be made on business considerations, not tax considerations, companies would move operations here to take advantage of the better tax environment.
As you point out, it would not be much revenue lost anyway.
C’mon, Jack
You want to shout your ideology, feel free. Just do not start off with talking about high tax rates that do not exist before you do it. We have one of the lowest effective tax rates in the civilized world, yet somehow we have seen no evidence of “companies would move operations here to take advantage of the better tax environment.”
“So why not just tax the money when it gets to the individual, and tax it all at the same rate?”
Cause taxing labor over capital has the obvious effects, and they certainly are not the ones your ideology states.
Jack
once again, slowly,
i pointed out in my modest proposal that taxing corporations only would result in higher prices or lower wages but that wouldn’t matter because the people would not be paying any tax so their “net income” would remain the same. Similarly, since the corps would be passing through the cost of their taxes, their net income would remain the same.
The only change would be that corporation accountants would figure their taxes…. as they do today… but the average citizen would not have to hire an accountant to figure his taxes as he does today.
Moreover, since corporations are smarter than people, they would know where their taxes were going and be harder to snow by the politicians. And if the tax were reasonably straightforward, the corps COULD concentrate on “business” knowing their tax would be a fair simple percentage of their honest profit.
No doubt there are consequences I haven’t thought of, but it doesn’t seem to me you have allowed yourself to even think about the possibilities… responding with the one-liners that right-winger throw out every time corporations are asked to pay any taxes at all.
> We have one of the lowest effective tax rates in the civilized world…
How, exactly, do you define an “effective” tax rate?
> [Taxing] labor over capital has the obvious effects….
Except for real estate, cars, and boats, we don’t tax capital at all, and those taxes are completely separate from income taxes and payroll taxes. So what are you talking about?
You’re missing the key issue, Coberly — the wastefulness of needing accountants to compute taxes, and that brainpower can be put to productive use.
If corporations are not taxed, then they will not need people to compute, and to figure out ways to avoid, those taxes. If ALL personal income is taxed at the same rate, whether it comes from dividends, capital gains, or wages, without deductions, then individuals won’t need accountants to figure out their taxes, either.
Jack
that is YOUR key issue. it is not one of the issues faced by most people.
trust me, the purpose of life is not to optimize business efficiency. if it were, we’d all be drug dealers.
Jack,
Try not to talk.
testing since I can’t seem to comment on ACA thread above
“[That] is YOUR key issue. it is not one of the issues faced by most people.”
While true that this is not an issue that most people face, it is an issue that they should face, because EVERYONE is paying for that waste in higher prices.
Jack.
Let me know when you find a perfect person that does not live in Ouray, Colorado.
Jack
you see the problem right there:
i say that optimizing business efficiency is not the purpose of life.
you reply that it should be because “everyone is paying higher prices…”
so let me say it another way: getting the lowest possible price is not the purpose of life..
the “problem” is that in your brain “lowest price” “highest profit” are more important than decency, happiness, health, or the light of day.
Optimizing business efficiency IS the purpose of most businesses.
If you wish to pay more than you are charged, very few businesses will complain. Go ahead, tip the burger flipper if you want to. Put your own money where your mouth is.
Jack
I don’t even go into “fast food” places. I worked in one once.
And while I understand that it is the business of business to make the most profit they can, it is the business of society to see that that doesn’t turn into a hell on earth.
There is no doubt that “free competition” will push labor to survival wages and below. The history of politics and economics since that became obvious a couple of hundred years ago has been how to balance the benefits of free competition with the requirements of decency and public order…
it is okay with me if you can’t understand that. i don’t expect the prize bull in the farmyard, who makes the farmers money for him, to understand the need for fences. but neither do i enjoy listening to the bull explain profoundly the great riches that would come to me if i only took down the fences.
It is only with the advent of capitalism that the majority of people have had a way to get above survival living.
Unskilled labor will always be at or below survival wages. Why? Because when unskilled labor demands more, they will be replaced by those who are not working at all, or by machines. The Minimum Wage has been pushed to the point that bank tellers have been replaced by ATM’s and grocery clerks have been replaced by self-checkout lines.
The way up and out is to develop a marketable skill.
You do not even seem to understand that when the price of something increases, less of that thing is purchased. That includes unskilled labor. That is why so many people lost their jobs when the Minimum Wage went up in 2007.
I am not OK with your not understanding that, because public policies that try to fight that reality are damaging.
If you care about the poor, donate to charities that help the poor. There is NOTHING that public policy can do that we do not already have charities to address. If you disagree, then form a charity to fill whatever gap you see.
Jack
unfortunately you have an ideology that answers every question and leads you back into the same blind alley. it is indeed called hell by those who concern themselves with hell has a real “situation” if not place, without regard to a particular theology.
we have the world we have. not a primitive or even medieval village where people naturally take care of each other, and where, by the way, there was no “below survival” wage.
there is nothing natural about low wages being “what the work is worth.” the wages are low because that’s what the employer can get away with as long as there are people who can’t find other work.. whatever their skills are. this is a problem that seems to come in cycles…. call the business cycle for some reason. the rich always survive business cycles, the poor often die, or did before the people… by means of government… began to find ways to help them through the bad times. turns out this was good for business too, but the right wing businessman is too dumb to understand that.
if workers could organize and demand a higher wage the rest of us would have to pay a little more and maybe buy a little less. not so much less that we would even notice it, but there is no reason the lady who cleans your rest room should not make as much money for her time as you do for yours… if you had to spend the time cleaning the rest room THAT would be the opportunity cost of the job.
the only reason you can pay her less is political, not economic.
by the way, i ran a small business once, and after being talked to quite sternly by a prospective employee, i paid the help what they were worth (in my time, not what the market would bear) and took home less myself, and was very happy with the arrangement.
‘[There] is no reason the lady who cleans your rest room should not make as much money for her time as you do for yours… if you had to spend the time cleaning the rest room THAT would be the opportunity cost of the job.”
There is a very good reason she is paid less per hour than I am — just about anyone can clean a bathroom, and very few people can do my job. It takes years of training and experience to be able to do what I do. The training is expensive and less than one-third of those who qualify to start the training finish it.
How much training does it take to clean a bathroom?
Some people’s time really is worth more. Even those who clean bathrooms. If one person does it better and faster than another, shouldn’t the faster and better employee be paid more? Should the computer programmer who is slower and makes more mistakes be paid the same per hour as the one who writes twice as much code with half as many errors? Should the grocery clerk who gets through 30 items per minute be paid the same as the one who does only ten?
If everyone were paid the same hourly wage, why would anyone go through the time, trouble, and expense of getting specialized, difficult training?
jack:
Off again on another neocon rant?
So you face the same bacterial and disease hazards in your day to day desk position hours on end?
Just about anyone can stand and work on an automotive assembly line 8 hours a day also; but, how long can they continue day after day for years on end. The physical stress on the body begins to take its toll on those who do physical activity as a means of making a living the same as the constant exposure to bacteria and disease which is rampant in areas visited by people utilizing the facility day after day.
While you sit and expend your cranial activities at a desk, those who do physical labor and expose themselves to dangers from the type of work they do are not compensated for it as society does not see a value to it. Yet, the importance of it is the same as your desk jockeying.
Jack
“if everyone were paid the same… why would anyone go to the time and trouble to get specialized training?”
answer: because the work is more fun. and the reason you pay your cleaning lady the same as you pay yourself is because the hour she spends cleaning up after you is an hour you can spend doing the work you love.
you assume that “anybody can do it” means the work is worthless. what i have seen is that the work “anybody can do” is the most important work in the world. as you will find when no one wants to pick crops any more and you have to clean your own bathroom.
> the hour she spends cleaning up after you is an hour you can spend doing
> the work you love
Well, then, she must love cleaning bathrooms at the rate of pay she is getting, otherwise she would get trained for a job she like more and that pays better.
> [You] assume that “anybody can do it” means the work is worthless…
No, but it is worth less.
Jack
like i have said, you can always find a rationalization to justify your greed.
i would assume the lady can NOT learn a more skilled trade… though i have seen ph.d’s doing unskilled labor because the market for their skills is oversupplied and they don’t have another ten years to learn a new “high level” skill.
but no one, whatever their level of skill or ability, should be forced to live in degrading poverty because you can always find someone to do the work cheaper.
we have reached a point where i don’t like you very much. not a good idea for me to continue talking to you.
Is it not greedy on YOUR part to demand a piece of what others have earned?
Why can she not learn a more skilled trade?
I have also seen Ph.D.’s doing unskilled labor. They chose to study what they wanted to study, not what would earn them a living. But those who DID study what would earn them a living should be forced to support those who studied what they WANTED instead?
No-one is FORCING them to do anything. They chose the course of their lives. They studied useless things, or perhaps did not study at all. They slacked off in school, perhaps, and so did not take advantage of the education offered to them.
And I don’t know whether you’ve toured the world much, but we don’t exactly have “degrading poverty” in this country. Is there any other country where the primary health problem of the poor is OBESITY? Our “poor” people eat TOO MUCH!!
The UN defines “extreme poverty” as living on less than $1 per day. How fat can you get on $1 per day?
You could of had a bit of a point jack, then ruined it. But then, a snappy come back has been well provided for in the media. What a shame.
By all means, then, refute my point.