[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[ryzno]

He paid 0% of corporate income tax because he's not a corporation.

I should have said that. But at times I feel like a corporation, (I'm 1099 contractor)I get fined if my business deductions are incorrect, I don't pay SS or Medi(care/cade). I have a limit to how much I can deduct. I have to have a EI# so I can take deductions. So regardless taxs are a PIA for me. I'd love to have a flat tax like Herman Cain proposed. At times though I'm glad I don't pay into the SS system, it's debated, but I doubt it will be around by the time I retire.

Edit I pay every year, I haven't seen a refund in 6 years.
I'm not boo whooin but I find the tax rate difference regardless of size a little biased. Just like having to pay higher interest rates just cause I'm just starting out.

 

[Famine]

I tried to explain this to people several months back in the $15/hr thread and it went nowhere. At least someone else besides me gets it...

Only it doesn't make sense. If you replace a human with a machine you don't need another human to build/maintain it. One human makes hundreds of machines, one human services hundreds of machines and one machine replaces a handful of humans. This means a significant net loss of human jobs - just look at the motor industry. Dearborn had 90,000 human employees in the 1930s and only a couple of thousand by 2000, thanks to automation. That's a net loss of more than 90% of the workforce - where did they go?

I'll tell you where they didn't go - into the IT industry. The humans who are replaced are unskilled. The humans who create and maintain the machines are skilled. The humans who are replaced are either unemployed or they have to retrain (expensively) for fewer skilled jobs.


There are still jobs that unskilled humans can do that machines are not yet a preferred option for, but typically Western unskilled humans think these jobs are beneath them and they are filled by labour shipped in from other countries - in our case Eastern Europe and in yours Mexico.

 

[mustafur]

@Famine
People move to other industries, do you think the service industry has the monopoly on unskilled work?

Your analysis doesn't take into account of productivity, the robot can only replace the human once it's productive enough but who is to say that once that happens productivity stalemates and robots stay the same price.

These factors work against your theory that the industry that maintains and makes them can't replace the work force.

Also a skilled workforce is an ever increasing thing and has been for a very long time, like a business, people also move towards where the demand is(refer to the IT industry for example).

 

[Winters Noble]

Let's be Luddites!

 

[Famine]

People move to other industries, do you think the service industry has the monopoly on unskilled work?

What other industries? Ones that we're too proud to do?

There are still jobs that unskilled humans can do that machines are not yet a preferred option for, but typically Western unskilled humans think these jobs are beneath them and they are filled by labour shipped in from other countries - in our case Eastern Europe and in yours Mexico.

And what happens when those industries are automated too?

Your analysis doesn't take into account of productivity, the robot can only replace the human once it's productive enough but who is to say that once that happens productivity stalemates and robots stay the same price.

To be accurate, the robot (or machine) can only replace four or five humans once it's productive enough - machines don't need to work shifts or sleep, or have break time or steal stock. A machine doesn't replace a human - it replaces a lot of humans.

At the other end of the chain, one human can make several thousand machines. With automation, the machines can make several thousand machines. So where there were 10,000 jobs and no machines, there's now 1 job making machines, and 10,000 machines. Call it a hundred jobs if you think one person can only manage to keep 100 machines going. That's a workforce reduction of 99%.

Detroit has seen the effects of automation more than any other city. The population has halved since the 1930s but unemployment is still higher than any other city in the USA at over a third of the population. Vehicle output is ten times higher now than it was 80 years ago.

Also a skilled workforce is an ever increasing thing and has been for a very long time, like a business, people also move towards where the demand is.

You can't become skilled without training. You can't train if you don't have any money, which you don't have if you don't have a job because your unskilled job has been taken by a machine. There are fewer skilled jobs available, so competition is higher, particularly if 90% of the unskilled workforce is all trying to get them...

 

[Johnnypenso]

If there was no minimum wage the power would be more in the hands of the Worker/Unions on what they make, businesses would have to compete to get a workforce as simply paying absolutely nothing isn't going to give you a workforce to supply your demands.By having a Minimum wage there is no competition between businesses as they can just all stick to this same wage taking all the power from the workers in payment negotiations therefore it gets used as a ''maximum wage''.

Any business that wants to compete and sees value in hiring the best employees will attract them through higher wages. Basic economics. The reason Walmart and Target and thousands of other big and small companies get stuck at minimum wage or just slightly higher is because the jobs require so little skill or training that one body is as good as the next and so there's no need to pay a higher wage. An employee stocking shelves or ringing through sales cannot do anything on the job that significantly increases their value to the organization beyond what any other easily available recruit can do. Again, basic economics. There's no competition between companies for employees because the pool of employees who are able to perform these very basic customer service or manual labour functions is vast. That's how minimum wage becomes your so-called maximum wage.

Robots are all well and good but your not taking away anything a robot workforce would open up opportunities elsewhere as those robots will still need to be maintained, made designed and operated.

No. If the workforce was not decreased in total by bringing on robots, then it would still be more cost efficient to use human labour. By definition when robots get adopted by retailers or manufacturers to replace manual labour it means a reduction in the workforce, assuming the same demand for the product, pricing etc or it would not be adopted. Now someone could choose to utilize robots and humans together to offer a different kind or premium service and maintain or even increase employment levels but that's a new product essentially.

Say you have to reduce the amount of workers to pay this extra wage costs via a higher minimum wage the workforce that is working is paid more thus is able to spend more which in turn creates it's own demand, companies are not just going to leave because workers are expensive because there will still be a demand for goods and that demand will have plenty of opportunity for those that supply.

Companies will and have left due to higher wages. Ever look at a product lable in Walmart? You think your $15 toaster is made in Wisconsin?

The businesses will have to restructure their pay cycle from top to bottom to cater for this if they intend to keep same or similar profit levels which will essentially close the gap between the highest earners and lowest in said company.

History tells us that most companies will restructure their pay cycle by closing domestic production and getting stuff built in Mexico or overseas. Bye bye jobs.

I never said I wanted it to be $15. Way to put words in my mouth, although that's not surprising coming from you.

It should realistically be in the $9-10 range.

I posted a picture of the fight for $15 min. wage, nowhere did I say that you wanted a $15 minimum wage. Nice way to skirt the rest of my post though.

 

[mustafur]

What other industries? Ones that we're too proud to do?
And what happens when those industries are automated too?

You can only go soo far Before the Humans are out of the equation but do you honestly think that will happen? Society will be automated for a demand that won't exist as the people who buy the products at that point can't, Either way, well before that happens Governments will be forced to draw a line on what a machine can and cannot do for society to exist.

To be accurate, the robot (or machine) can only replace four or five humans once it's productive enough - machines don't need to work shifts or sleep, or have break time or steal stock. A machine doesn't replace a human - it replaces a lot of humans.

At the other end of the chain, one human can make several thousand machines. With automation, the machines can make several thousand machines. So where there were 10,000 jobs and no machines, there's now 1 job making machines, and 10,000 machines. Call it a hundred jobs if you think one person can only manage to keep 100 machines going. That's a workforce reduction of 99%.

In that area of work yes, as long as Humans have some part and it only has to be minor it will occupy, productivity being soo high can allow the workforce to move towards other parts of the process(what that is im not sure as we are not even near that level yet), with the numbers it left from other parts.

Detroit has seen the effects of automation more than any other city. The population has halved since the 1930s but unemployment is still higher than any other city in the USA at over a third of the population. Vehicle output is ten times higher now than it was 80 years ago.

You acknowledge that a huge part of that is people leaving, those people leaving for where demand is, they didn't just die off. Some have stayed and have paid the price but that is only a net loss for that region that is connected to many others, that don't experience this. Not everyone is the same person, some will stay and suffer and alot will move to something else.
If the workforce as a whole had kept these Significant numbers of unemployed through Industry revolution and didn't move on, I doubt anyone would be working today.

You can't become skilled without training. You can't train if you don't have any money, which you don't have if you don't have a job because your unskilled job has been taken by a machine. There are fewer skilled jobs available, so competition is higher, particularly if 90% of the unskilled workforce is all trying to get them...

Who is to say that if an unskilled job is taken by a machine that there will be less skilled jobs, the very essence of a machine breeds skill to create it.

I will say though, Going into this route. the only way Economies can survive going forward is if education is supplied to all that choose it, either paid fully by Taxes or though paid Work training course.

But I hope you do realise that there is a end point in this and it does require regulations at some point to stop society from not existing, Simply keeping wages low and businesses free to do as they please will not stop this as technology can always Prevail and the limitation from a business standpoint is it looks after itself first but not human society as a whole.

 

[mustafur]

Any business that wants to compete and sees value in hiring the best employees will attract them through higher wages. Basic economics. The reason Walmart and Target and thousands of other big and small companies get stuck at minimum wage or just slightly higher is because the jobs require so little skill or training that one body is as good as the next and so there's no need to pay a higher wage. An employee stocking shelves or ringing through sales cannot do anything on the job that significantly increases their value to the organization beyond what any other easily available recruit can do. Again, basic economics. There's no competition between companies for employees because the pool of employees who are able to perform these very basic customer service or manual labour functions is vast. That's how minimum wage becomes your so-called maximum wage.

Not really thats an assumption on your part, in Australia for example Mcdonalds pays slightly above minimum wage on normal jobs, because the supply of jobs is that much higher then people applying to work.

Supply and demand defines everything, if no one wanted to work at Mcdonalds they would be forced to pay more for employees, haven't you heard of the Dump truck driver vs the Teacher?

No. If the workforce was not decreased in total by bringing on robots, then it would still be more cost efficient to use human labour. By definition when robots get adopted by retailers or manufacturers to replace manual labour it means a reduction in the workforce, assuming the same demand for the product, pricing etc or it would not be adopted. Now someone could choose to utilize robots and humans together to offer a different kind or premium service and maintain or even increase employment levels but that's a new product essentially.

Say if wages go up and that happens, wouldn't the robots then cost more as the people working on them either at a factory or maintenance or Sales will be paid more meaning that it's net effect is roughly the same?

Companies will and have left due to higher wages. Ever look at a product lable in Walmart? You think your $15 toaster is made in Wisconsin?

and how many Service jobs where created at Walmart in America from cheaper items, they still need jobs to sell to the Market.

History tells us that most companies will restructure their pay cycle by closing domestic production and getting stuff built in Mexico or overseas. Bye bye jobs.

Still plenty of jobs in other areas of the company that can't move and will be a direct beneficiary from increased demand by selling cheaper items.

 

[A2K78]

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a55305/make-america-great-again-donald-trump/

This is by far the most clueless article in regards to Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan. Why? the author claim Trump want to take America back to a time when blacks were slaves, women couldn't vote and all that nonsense.

Anyhow what people fail realize is that America is no longer a great place and voters pretty much demonstrated when 85% percent of American declare that country is wrong track.

That said if Trump want to take America back to the 18/19th century then I'm all for it and why? Back then Americans were far off better than they are now. Sure they didn't have standard of living or amount of stuff that we have today, but back then Americans were far much freer and happier given the fact they didn't have to worry about the overbearing reach of government, that is until the Progressive Era which ushered the era of big government and less personal and economic freedoms. In fact we're still seeing the sad legacy of the Progressive Era when one look at the massive amount of unemployment and poverty.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a55305/make-america-great-again-donald-trump/

This is by far the most clueless article in regards to Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan. Why? the author claim Trump want to take America back to a time when blacks were slaves, women couldn't vote and all that nonsense.

Anyhow what people fail realize is that America is no longer a great place and voters pretty much demonstrated when 85% percent of American declare that country is wrong track.

That said if Trump want to take America back to the 18/19th century then I'm all for it and why? Back then Americans were far off better than they are now. Sure they didn't have standard of living or amount of stuff that we have today, but back then Americans were far much freer and happier given the fact they didn't have to worry about the overbearing reach of government, that is until the Progressive Era which ushered the era of big government and less personal and economic freedoms. In fact we're still seeing the sad legacy of the Progressive Era when one look at the massive amount of unemployment and poverty.

Prove to me that people in 1700/1800 were happier. That's false and ignorant to say.

 

[Spagetti69]

Prove to me that people in 1700/1800 were happier. That's false and ignorant to say.

I assume he's talking about the Native American Indians, who's country it is/was.

 

[A2K78]

Prove to me that people in 1700/1800 were happier. That's false and ignorant to say.

Read any economic/historical publication by either:

Thomas DiLorenzo
Ron Paul
Thomas Woods
Murray Rothbard
Walter E. Williams
Robert P. Murphy
Kevin Guzman
Mises

What do all of these individual have common? They conclude that Americans were better off back then than now.

 

[GTPorsche]

Completely ridiculous that people think blocking traffic is a way to get their point across.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Completely ridiculous that people think blocking traffic is a way to get their point across.

Little disappointing when your state makes headlines for the wrong reasons.

 

[A2K78]

Look to like the work of Soros.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

There are too many libertarians here who don't care the percentage of people in their country are unemployed as if having poor people makes a country better...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Back then Americans were far off better than they are now. Sure they didn't have standard of living or amount of stuff that we have today, but back then Americans were far much freer and happier given the fact they didn't have to worry about the overbearing reach of government

Huh? That was the point of the war of Independence, no? For half that time they weren't even American. Notwithstanding that they were free to live every one of their 40 expected years as they wanted. Happy days.

 

[GTPorsche]

I bet they were also happy when sudden extreme cold winters hit and they barely survived through it. But hey, at least they didn't have government watching over them like a hawk, right?

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

I bet they were also happy when sudden extreme cold winters hit and they barely survived through it. But hey, at least they didn't have government watching over them like a hawk, right?

They had the freedom to die of things like fever, dysentery, polio! The good ole days when ones Freedom came first!
If you don't have the freedom to die, the government is too big!

 

[Famine]

There are too many libertarians here who don't care the percentage of people in their country are unemployed as if having poor people makes a country better...

Punishing companies with high minimum wages and high corporation taxes leads to high unemployment - by making them outsource jobs - as I've explained to you. Seems a bit rich for you to complain that other people don't care about unemployment when you want to create it.

 

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Punishing companies with high minimum wages and high corporation taxes leads to high unemployment - by making them outsource jobs - as I've explained to you. Seems a bit rich for you to complain that other people don't care about unemployment when you want to create it.

Yesssssss. So creating better conditions where people can afford to live without the fear of missing a day because they won't be able to buy food for the work period, is the problem in society. It's not the greed of corporations or their willingness to throw millions in to our political system so it can lean in their favor, it's the greedy minimum wage workers who want to be able to afford a $60 video game for the month! How dare they want to have luxury in their long miserable life!

seems rich that you want to attack me for creating unemployment, when the average minimum wage earner is working multiple jobs just to get their nose out of the slush.

 

[Famine]

Yesssssss. So creating better conditions where people can afford to live without the fear of missing a day because they won't be able to buy food for the work period, is the problem in society. It's not the greed of corporations or their willingness to throw millions in to our political system so it can lean in their favor, it's the greedy minimum wage workers who want to be able to afford a $60 video game for the month! How dare they want to have luxury in their long miserable life!

seems rich that you want to attack me for creating unemployment, when the average minimum wage earner is working multiple jobs just to get their nose out of the slush.

That'll be because the minimum wage exists... As I explained, minimum wage creates unemployment and hurts the lowest paid most of all. Your solution is to tax the rich more punitively which, as I explained, makes the problem worse, not better, by forcing companies to outsource or automate to remain competitive at the expense of the least skilled workers.

You can throw as much emotive hyperbole about as you like, but ultimately your ideas make income inequality worse.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Your solution is to tax the rich more punitively which, as I explained, makes the problem worse, not better, by forcing companies to outsource or automate to remain competitive at the expense of the least skilled workers.

I think there's a perception that big companies undercut the tax system for their own ends, then hide behind the very same arguments that you make. I think that a lot of people feel that big companies could reasonably be taxed more - and essentially pay their fair share - without jeopardising their competitive position.

 

[Famine]

I think there's a perception that big companies undercut the tax system for their own ends, then hide behind the very same arguments that you make.

It's neither perception nor hiding. They do it openly.

Their role is to make products that people want to buy. This is best achieved by making the most amount of money possible, that's best achieved by making the price as low as possible (so people can buy it) while offsetting costs and that is best achieved by making the costs as low as possible. They will engage in all sorts of financial chicanery to avoid paying as much tax as possible, and few of them are at all evasive about it.

They'll put head offices in ludicrous locations, create charities, offset profits by investing and lobby like crazy, all to avoid paying tax.

I think that a lot of people feel that big companies could reasonably be taxed more - and essentially pay their fair share - without jeopardising their competitive position.

And sadly 'feeling' is what a lot of people base opinion on.

In the UK at the moment we have an ongoing scrap in the tabloids about Amazon and Starbucks, and others, paying zero corporation tax in the UK despite massive operating profits in the UK - wholly legally because they register offices in Jersey and the Republic of Ireland and with complicated financial arrangements operate in the UK. A lot of people 'feel' that the companies aren't paying their fair share of tax because of this absence of corporation tax - and in fact they 'feel' that they are paying no tax at all, which is bollocks because they pay all the taxation required on their sales (VAT), properties and employees - and that they should pay more. A lot more people complain but don't actually care and still keep buying from them.

Would increasing tax rates on businesses cause them to pay more than the zero they pay under the current tax rates? Nope - corporation tax rates are a thing now and they pay nothing, so increasing them would have no effect. Would it lead more businesses to try to come to similar arrangements and thus remove tax income from the Treasury, as it became more expensive to operate as a UK business? Oh yeah. Maybe you'll get a few family companies who claim to have ethics and morals who won't do it - but then they'll either fail as they're outcompeted or they'll be bought by companies that do.

Increases in minimum wages have seen checkout staff at supermarkets replaced with touchscreens. Three checkouts are now nine touchscreens with one member of staff hanging about in case there's an unexpected item in the bagging area - a reduction in unskilled labour by 66%. Supermarkets are writing off losses from people simply not scanning and paying for items because they're less expensive than employing the staff! It won't be too long, if the $15 brigade in the USA gets its way, that fast food joints go the same way, with all of the front-of-house staff replaced with touchscreens and the two kids lurking in the back to actually 'cook' the food trained in turning-it-off-and-on-again.

When you increase the cost of doing business to people who want to keep costs down, it's surely no surprise that they seek to avoid the costs - and when they do so it's the poorest, unskilled workers who suffer.

 

[Spagetti69]

Is there truth to the statement doing the rounds that 41% of Trump voters voted to bomb Aggrabah (Fictional city from Alladin)?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Is there truth to the statement doing the rounds that 41% of Trump voters voted to bomb Aggrabah (Fictional city from Alladin)?

I doubt it. I think it's an urban legend designed to prove "LOL trump voters r dumb".

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Is there truth to the statement doing the rounds that 41% of Trump voters voted to bomb Aggrabah (Fictional city from Alladin)?

Yup.

Although the figures for the rest of them weren't a great deal better......

 

[Spagetti69]

Yup.

Although the figures for the rest of them weren't a great deal better......

Crikey out of 101% too.

 

[samurai8juice]

A lot of people that don't understand what he is trying to do believe this is all that it is, which is definitely not the case. You might want to read up on his "policies" a bit more.

I didn't even say that!

I was generalizing that the support he was getting was from people who think they will be guaranteed free stuff if he becomes President.

I do understand some of where he stands and some of his policy.

You might want to read my post a little closer.

No I didn't that was your main talking point, you've just changed the goal post in your last post prior to this.



It's now due to that. However, what exact policy is at issue here?



Terrible in any logical persons view, read my comments again. Just cause a person dresses in a Million Dollar suit and uses a dictionary for a cover page to their speech hardly means they have the merits to run a nation already struggling in various areas. The fact that you think it is a merit after I've said what I said tells me enough to about where this conversation will go.



No it just gives you a reason to justify a prejudicial reasoning, considering you didn't say it in the first place but no are.



Except for that time you were...

What policy? Let's see...
- I disagree with his abortion position.
- I disagree with his whole overhauling the tax brackets.
- I disagree with his universal health care.
- I somewhat agree with 'free' public college.

But I agree completely with some of the disarming of police department's military grade equipment, and I agree with his gun control position, and I agree with his position on Wall Street corruption and trying to end it.

I don't understand why you think I'm making stuff up? I mean, I have no reason to lie about my opinion to you on here.

Yeah, I did say Bernie looks like a crazy old man, but I also said I disliked some of his policy.

It's just his appearance. He looks like a crazy old man.

I mean some of his ideas are ok, but others I just dislike. I'd rather see him than Hillary, but that still isn't saying much.

 

[squadops]

This guy looked pretty crazy

Some of his policies were viewed that way also, at the time anyway.