Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 297
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:24 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
since it would be Obama deciding that bureaucrats were more deserving to be paid .


Deserving to be paid? If they did the work then they are owed the money, Deserving has nothing to do with it.


Depends on the quality of the work, not just if they showed up. Are you saying they should be paid and grandma should start stocking up on Alpo? How compassionate.

Personally I'd say cut bureaucrats off, we don't need nearly as many middle-managers and desk jockeys cruising for porn. There is no reason for public sector employees to be getting paid more than their private sector *and* enjoying the protections of being government employees *and* drawing benefits on top of it all. It used to be that working for the government was supposed to earn less and be a crappy job, but at least you had job security. Nowadays they are getting paid more and getting bigger raises while the private sector struggles to pay enough taxes to pay public sector jobs. Screw that.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 297
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:34 pm
 


xerxes wrote:
Under Pres. Eisenhower, the tax rate for the top income earners was 91% and I'm pretty sure the US didn't succumb to a capital flight nor were collective farms the norm.


Tax revenues have never exceeded more than 20% of annual GDP since the end of WWII despite the top income tax rates. Funny thing, people figure out ways to keep their money and property.

Responsible politicians recognized that fact and kept spending down. But Obama hasn't been responsible.

http://www.leeeldridge.com/why-tax-incr ... -problems/


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Calgary Flames
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12285
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:52 pm
 


Teikiatsu wrote:
Zipperfish wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
since it would be Obama deciding that bureaucrats were more deserving to be paid .


Deserving to be paid? If they did the work then they are owed the money, Deserving has nothing to do with it.


Depends on the quality of the work, not just if they showed up. Are you saying they should be paid and grandma should start stocking up on Alpo? How compassionate.

Personally I'd say cut bureaucrats off, we don't need nearly as many middle-managers and desk jockeys cruising for porn. There is no reason for public sector employees to be getting paid more than their private sector *and* enjoying the protections of being government employees *and* drawing benefits on top of it all. It used to be that working for the government was supposed to earn less and be a crappy job, but at least you had job security. Nowadays they are getting paid more and getting bigger raises while the private sector struggles to pay enough taxes to pay public sector jobs. Screw that.


So your personal hatred for government workers means that you have the right to arbitrarily decide whether or not they even get paid? Screw that? More like screw you, jerky. I swear to God that every time I blunder across a new comment made by one of you TeaPartying prats you've actually managed to do the impossible by making yourselves look stupider.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 8:58 pm
 


xerxes wrote:
Under Pres. Eisenhower, the tax rate for the top income earners was 91% and I'm pretty sure the US didn't succumb to a capital flight nor were collective farms the norm.
I think paying for WW2 is a little more important than paying for a failed theory of economic recovery.

Teikiatsu wrote:
Tax revenues have never exceeded more than 20% of annual GDP since the end of WWII despite the top income tax rates.
There's not really a connection between total taxable income and GDP. Lots of things count as GDP that aren't taxable, and certainly not at personal income tax rates.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 342
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:57 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
From my keyboard to God's monitor:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html

Moody's today downgraded Ireland to junk and put the US on a downgrade watch. So if the US tries to continue borrowing it will be at higher rates as the market thinks it may be too risky to invest in US securities. At least if the det ceiling isn't raised then current interest service can be maintained with current revenues - it's the spending that will have to be slashed to austerity levels.
Your post seems to contradict the link you gave. The reason US was put on downgrade watch is not (yet at least) the size of the debt compared to US' ability to pay. Rather the reason for it was specifically that a possible failure to raise the debt limit would result in US government neglecting the payments on its debt. I guess the government can instead neglect some other payments (like salaries), but the credit raters seem to think that it won't.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15078
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:38 pm
 


Boehner, the incompetent


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23940
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:52 pm
 


xerxes wrote:
Under Pres. Eisenhower, the tax rate for the top income earners was 91% and I'm pretty sure the US didn't succumb to a capital flight nor were collective farms the norm.



To be blunt, it wasn't as easy to do it back then.

Nowadays, you can do it without ever leaving your keyboard.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:02 am
 


Scape wrote:
I don't link to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin. Please return the favor by not linking to Rachel Maddow, at least in the Filibuster section of the forums.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15078
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:24 pm
 


Psudo wrote:
Scape wrote:
I don't link to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin. Please return the favor by not linking to Rachel Maddow, at least in the Filibuster section of the forums.


I read the OP and couldn't disagree more with your assessment. Ms Maddow talks at length and addresses a series of points that directly contradict your OP far better then what I could have typed up in a paragraph or two.

If you want to post some rubbish about Rush by all means I won't stop you but don't expect your opinion to be taken seriously.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18159
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:45 pm
 


Teikiatsu wrote:
Depends on the quality of the work, not just if they showed up. Are you saying they should be paid and grandma should start stocking up on Alpo? How compassionate.


What I'm saying is that, when you work, there is a contract between you and the employer, and the employer cannot arbitrarily decide that he doesn't want to pay you for work already done.

One thing you can do is simply schedule unpaid time off for civil servants. This is not that uncommon, but you give people advance notice so they can plan.


Quote:
Personally I'd say cut bureaucrats off, we don't need nearly as many middle-managers and desk jockeys cruising for porn. There is no reason for public sector employees to be getting paid more than their private sector *and* enjoying the protections of being government employees *and* drawing benefits on top of it all. It used to be that working for the government was supposed to earn less and be a crappy job, but at least you had job security. Nowadays they are getting paid more and getting bigger raises while the private sector struggles to pay enough taxes to pay public sector jobs. Screw that.


The problem here is that your personal distaste for bureaucrats is interfering with a rational decision. First off, I can't speak for every profession, but as an engineer and scientist and I can tell you that public service engineers do not make more than their private sector counterparts. The government in BC has trouble hanging on to engineers for precisely this reason. Same with government senior executives.

Also, any savings you would get from just decisding that you weren't going to pay people for their work any more would evaporate after the courts inevitably decided that this was a breach of contract, and delivered a verdict to pay the workers with interest, pay legal costs, and pay for any hardships endured by workers as a result of this decision.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24484
PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:55 pm
 


IN BC we have a nice circular argument going on. BC ferries were "privatized" to become more efficient. So we paid the head of BC ferries what he would get in the private sector 1.2million a year and a 300,000 pension after 10 years instead of what an equivalent civil servant would have received - 500k a year tops and a 70k a year pension after a who knows how many years on the job. Really efficients there alright.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 647
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:24 am
 


Scape wrote:
Psudo wrote:
Scape wrote:
I don't link to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin. Please return the favor by not linking to Rachel Maddow, at least in the Filibuster section of the forums.


I read the OP and couldn't disagree more with your assessment. Ms Maddow talks at length and addresses a series of points that directly contradict your OP far better then what I could have typed up in a paragraph or two.

If you want to post some rubbish about Rush by all means I won't stop you but don't expect your opinion to be taken seriously.

If we're talking about how to get one's opinion taken seriously, I would argue against presenting an "opinion" that is literally nothing more than "here's a link I found," no matter who it is. I'm sure that, if he wanted to, Psudo could just turn on FOX News and crank the volume up as high as your MSNBC-tuned set goes, and then you could point your speakers at each other and whoever goes deaf last wins. However, I'd kind of rather have some intelligent and defensible discourse in here.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Boston Bruins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 235
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:18 am
 


Psudo wrote:
I think paying for WW2 is a little more important than paying for a failed theory of economic recovery.

To be fair, the current administration is also paying for two wars that they inherited from W. Which isn't to say that I agree with the obscene deficits being run right now.

The US needs an incarnation of Wilfrid Laurier to come and make a compromise between the Dems and Republicans. Cut defense spending and raise taxes (infuriating the right) and cut entitlement spending (irritating the left). Stop when the deficit is zero and both sides are equally dissatisfied with the result -- and no one leaves until it's done.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15078
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:54 am
 


Kjorteo wrote:
I would argue against presenting an "opinion" that is literally nothing more than "here's a link I found," no matter who it is.



If it was nothing then an op ed then sure, I could see your point. She is pointing out that what he has done while in the majority leadership role is have bills defeated that he has sponsored, held press conferences and lead with talking points that are an embarrassment to him, had not one but two separate rebuttals (unprecedented btw) to Obama's state of the union speech and they didn't even agree on talking points and shown that he has all the control over the GOP as a heard of cats. Did you need the soccer metaphor of scoring goals on yourself spelled out for you further?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 18691
PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:29 am
 


Zipperfish wrote:
Teikiatsu wrote:
Depends on the quality of the work, not just if they showed up. Are you saying they should be paid and grandma should start stocking up on Alpo? How compassionate.


What I'm saying is that, when you work, there is a contract between you and the employer, and the employer cannot arbitrarily decide that he doesn't want to pay you for work already done.

One thing you can do is simply schedule unpaid time off for civil servants. This is not that uncommon, but you give people advance notice so they can plan.


Quote:
Personally I'd say cut bureaucrats off, we don't need nearly as many middle-managers and desk jockeys cruising for porn. There is no reason for public sector employees to be getting paid more than their private sector *and* enjoying the protections of being government employees *and* drawing benefits on top of it all. It used to be that working for the government was supposed to earn less and be a crappy job, but at least you had job security. Nowadays they are getting paid more and getting bigger raises while the private sector struggles to pay enough taxes to pay public sector jobs. Screw that.


The problem here is that your personal distaste for bureaucrats is interfering with a rational decision. First off, I can't speak for every profession, but as an engineer and scientist and I can tell you that public service engineers do not make more than their private sector counterparts. The government in BC has trouble hanging on to engineers for precisely this reason. Same with government senior executives.

Also, any savings you would get from just decisding that you weren't going to pay people for their work any more would evaporate after the courts inevitably decided that this was a breach of contract, and delivered a verdict to pay the workers with interest, pay legal costs, and pay for any hardships endured by workers as a result of this decision.


R=UP Solid post!


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 69 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.