Raising taxes on the rich

[Monte_RCMS]

I’m not putting Canada down. I was commenting on one ranking category–not the worth or value of Canadian products. I am saying that we can skew statistics to say what we want. I am saying the list should be evaluated closely and the factors taken into consideration should be evaluated. I said nothing about the products Canada produces or their quality. So I’m not sure why it came up. If you thought about it I’m sure you could come up with long lists of things that various countries are good at making/doing/producing–regardless of their ranking on that Heritage list. That wasn’t the point. Where’d you get I’m attacking Canadian products?

Peace,
Mark

I asked if you could come up with a better list. And you couldn’t.

You challenged the idea that Canada ranked so high. And I suggested some possible reasons why Canada showed up so well.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Yes it is a simple overview. And not an accurate picture in my experience. You are one of the rare ones. Most people I see: do not tithe to their Church and indeed give very little to charity–unless you count the value of their Goodwill contributions which are usually inflated in value, they are usually looking for a way to preserve mom & dad’s money for themselves at the expense of their sibblings and their parents who they try to get on medicaid and into the cheapest nursing home around, and the lawn person isn’t usually a local kid but an illegal who they pay less than they would have had to pay the neighbor kid–who can’t find a job mowing lawns. Their ill and aging relatives and those who lost their job need medicare and food stamps because they are more concerned with their fancy car and twice a year vacations to exotic places than they are in helping their less fortunate relatives. That’s why Boss Hogg raised your taxes. If we were all doing are part there would be no need for any assistance programs–but it seems rather obvious that we are not doing our part.

Now lets not talk about the business owners–who constantly try to run non-deductible personal expenses through their business. Who look for ways to pay for their own healthcare and retirement through their businesses while trying to give nothing more than minimum wage to their employees who help them earn their nice living.
Sure there are great employers out their, but from what I see they are not the majority. As I said you are one of the rare ones.

You just provided the perfect justification of why you should start your own business.

And … that’s why OTHER people start their own businesses.

There is nothing to stop you.

You can be your own boss.

In fact, I would never hire anyone to work for me.

There is too much downside risk. Hiring someone exposes me to all kinds of problems … I have to provide you with a work place that you would find acceptable. Part of the cost of doing business that someone didn’t include in the cost of hiring an employee.

If I screw up and fail to submit one of the many many forms that the government requires, then the fines start at $10,000 and rise steeply from there. One of my friends started a framing shop and messed up on a two cent tax. Cost them $20,000 in fines.

If someone gets hurt, then I am liable for all sorts of things.

What I would do is hire a contractor who is fully licensed and insured. Check out the cost of getting licensed and insured. It will stun you. Just call your local county clerk at the county seat and tell them you want to start a contracting business and ask them to send you the forms.

Or, I would go through a temp agency and let them do all the paperwork and taxes. They generally charge a premium of around 40%. Could be more if I want the person drug tested. Could be less if there is a large number of people or if I tell them who I want them to hire for me.

But go ahead. Start your own business. Be one of the people that Hillary Clinton described as “undercapitalized”.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

This is why I think it’s the government’s primary job to force transparency in the market. This is done with things like food labels (and should be improved), and could be done more. Saying that consumer choice can change things means nothing if the consumers don’t have enough information to make intelligent decisions.

The issue of knowing what you are doing has always been there.

Caveat Emptor. Let the buyer beware.

it’s always been there.

Always.

And the government is bound by rigid policies and procedures that make fairness and impartiality almost impossible. Their bureaucracy is limited to what tools and equipment they are given. And the government is almost always several generations of technology behind. Government employees have complained for decades that they are forced to work with stuff that is ten or twenty years behind the state of the art. Because of “fairness”, the government must buy in large quantities, and because the dollar amounts are so large, they have to have detailed specifications of what they want to buy. How can a government purchasing agent buy a computer when he or she is an expert in purchasing and not in computers. They have all the paperwork for purchasing.

Ever hear of “reps and certs”? Representations and certifications. Government purchasing agents and contracting officers are required to get sellers to sign off on hundreds of pages certifying that the employees are treated right, that they meet EEO requirements, that the stuff isn’t made in China with slave labor, etc, etc. etc. And you need to certify as to your insurances … etc.

But, If YOU want a computer, you go on line or to Radio Shack or to a highway store or browse a catalog, talk to your friends, or even go to Craig’s List and buy a used machine and clean it up and install your own software.

The government can’t do that. In a lot of cases, they actually have to write a specification for a computer. It takes months or years of meetings and conferences to decide on a specification. And then, it is so old, that those machines are no longer being made.

So, how can the government test products when they are generations behind in the testing technology for the stuff they want to test?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Taxing the rich is an interesting concept. It may help to first take a deep breath, step back, and reflect that the richest of the rich, pretty much own and or control the lion’s share of the physical, material, means of production on planet earth. Even more important to realize that they control the money supply (something only Congress should be doing instead of outsourcing it to a private group of individuals know as the “Federal Reserve Board”). Community based currencies (esp Ithaca Hours and possibly “Time Dollars” in Maine) may be a way for grassroots groups of like minded individuals to conduct a significant (25 to 33%) of their daily commerce by trading the one commodity we are alloted in common. We each get only 24 hours per day, whether you are Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, or the guy or gal in the street. I’m sure there are a few things you can do in one hour that will take me a half day (or more!) and there might be one or two things I can do in one hour that might take you two or three hours to accomplish. Maybe we can narrow the division between Haves and Have-Nots through alternative time based community currencies.

When I opened my email this morning this was one of the first items that popped up and it is directly relevant:

Brad wrote: I say increase tax rates. Over 1 million in income it should be 40% [in taxes], over 5 million in income it should be 50%, over 10 million it should be 70% and over 100 million make it 90%. Let’s get rid all the tax scams especially the charitable remainder trusts and all the charities people have to save on taxes and hire friends and families.- in response to my column Tax Cut Talk Shows Obama Desperation

Dear Brad,

You’ve cut to the argument that’s really at the center of the debate.

Liberals have no respect for private property. That’s why some conservatives call you guys fascists and communists. You think just because someone is successful that they owe that success to the rest of the country, rather than their own efforts.

Conservatives start out with the assumption, correctly, that private property is sacrosanct.

Private property starts with ownership of the fruits of our labor. Anything less than being able to retain the whole of our property is slavery.

We fought a civil war over the simple proposition that a man can not be legally deprived of the fruits of their labor.

You, me, everyone is entitled to the entire fruits of their labor, even if we may grant the government some portion of our property to safeguard the rest. Yes, we all voluntarily band together to create a government to protect these rights in property. And yes, in order to accomplish this, we pay taxes.

But when governments start to trample on those rights and assume that the money is theirs to begin with, that’s a tyranny.

Go back and read what the Founders have to say about it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

So he writes a progam and makes a billion dollars and pays some taxes. I noticed how Bill Gates packed up Microsoft and moved it to Singapore to escape. You all act like they are taking 90% of what he makes and leaving him to live in poverty. He’s going to go to Singapore–really? Can’t he get cained there? What kind of free speach rights does he have there or in Hong Kong for that matter? He made a forturne and lives well. He’s really not going to write anymore programs because he’s discouraged?

How is paying taxes punishing people? They are paying for:
Security and stability to ply their trade and to create.
For good roads and an interstate highway system that makes it easy to transport there goods and services
For an educated work force–that helps them create and produce their goods and services.
For copyright and patent protections that allow them to profit from their creations without them being stolen and duplicated by others.
And the list goes on.
Punished? Really? I’m not for higher taxes and reform is in order–but punished?

What about the tax break he gets for mortgage interest paid on his million dollar home? Why should the government help finance his mansion–why aren’t you complaining about that?

Peace,
Mark

Sorry for double posting, but this reply is relevant to your comments and questions as well:

This response just happened to be in my inbox this morning:

Brad wrote: I say increase tax rates. Over 1 million in income it should be 40% [in taxes], over 5 million in income it should be 50%, over 10 million it should be 70% and over 100 million make it 90%. Let’s get rid all the tax scams especially the charitable remainder trusts and all the charities people have to save on taxes and hire friends and families.- in response to my column Tax Cut Talk Shows Obama Desperation

Dear Brad,

You’ve cut to the argument that’s really at the center of the debate.

Liberals have no respect for private property. That’s why some conservatives call you guys fascists and communists. You think just because someone is successful that they owe that success to the rest of the country, rather than their own efforts.

Conservatives start out with the assumption, correctly, that private property is sacrosanct.

Private property starts with ownership of the fruits of our labor. Anything less than being able to retain the whole of our property is slavery.

We fought a civil war over the simple proposition that a man can not be legally deprived of the fruits of their labor.

You, me, everyone is entitled to the entire fruits of their labor, even if we may grant the government some portion of our property to safeguard the rest. Yes, we all voluntarily band together to create a government to protect these rights in property. And yes, in order to accomplish this, we pay taxes.

But when governments start to trample on those rights and assume that the money is theirs to begin with, that’s a tyranny.

Go back and read what the Founders have to say about it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The “problem” is not the rich “not paying their fair share”.

And the “problem” is not enough government regulation.

The PROBLEM is corruption WITHIN the government:

openchoke.blogs.com/

And the way you stop government corruption is to stop government subsidies.

No more Fannie and Freddie. No more FDIC … it was when FDIC increased their savings guarantees that the LAST banking scandal emerged. And free money from Fannie and Freddie plus outright false certifications by Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines and a few others that brought us this current mess.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The “problem” is not the rich “not paying their fair share”.

And the “problem” is not enough government regulation.

The PROBLEM is corruption WITHIN the government:

openchoke.blogs.com/

And the way you stop government corruption is to stop government subsidies.

No more Fannie and Freddie. No more FDIC … it was when FDIC increased their savings guarantees that the LAST banking scandal emerged. And free money from Fannie and Freddie plus outright false certifications by Jamie Gorelick and Franklin Raines and a few others that brought us this current mess.

I would be more than a bit leery about doing away with FDIC. But liquidating FNMA and FHLMC? I would do that in a minute. There are perfectly well-run banking subsidiaries that do the very same thing, (package mortgages and issue mortgage-backed securities) except that they’re more careful about the mortgages they put in the packages.

 

[MarkInOregon]

The safety of tunnel mining has improved to the point that it no longer is even in the top ten of unsafe jobs. Even so, open pit mining is probably safer than tunnel mining. So, over the objections of the governors, the EPA has shut down 79 open pit coal mines … even though the mine owners spent millions to meet all the code requirements imposed by EPA and the other Federal agencies.

Where do YOU draw the line?

You have the option of buying clothing hand made in the USA by people who get paid very well. So, where do you buy your clothing and your shoes?

Do you eat fish? Commercial fishing is probably now the most dangerous job.

Do you live in a house made of wood? [2x4’s?] Do you use any products made of wood? Plywood? Wood furniture? Logging is probably now the second most dangerous job.

Do you use any kind of energy … electricity, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel? Providing energy to YOU is dangerous.

Where do you draw the line?

Should everyone work in a nice cubicle in an airconditioned building?

Construction is one of the ten most dangerous jobs.

Do you eat food? Where do you get the food? In a store? Well, agriculture is one of the ten most dangerous jobs.

Have you ever watched the program “Dirty Jobs”?

Where do you think eggs come from?

I’m thinking you have never actually worked out in the real world.

Maybe you should quit school and get a job.

Spend a few years as a garbage collector … it’s an essential job, it’s very dirty, and dangerous. Can’t do without it, though.

If you think that third world countries are really bad places, then join the Peace Corps and spend some time in Burundi … and see how long you last.

O.K. What is your deal? First I’m attacking Canada (which I did not do) and now I am apparently saying no one should have an unsafe job (which I did not) and now I see that I have never held a job–are you really paying attention to what I am saying or simply reacting without processing? I may be wrong but I think it has been suggested in this thread that we don’t need any business regulation–I’ve responded to that by saying that I think we do need some business regulation based on the past (and current) practices of business owners. I think worker and public safety have been improved by these regulations–you are free to disagree–I just think the historical record favors my position. This doesn’t mean I think all regulation is good and that there are not abuses and useless regulation–I just don’t think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater as the saying goes.

Why the personal attacks on where I shop, what I eat, what kind of house I live in etc–all of which you know nothing about–and which are not even relevant to a discussion of the need or lack of need for government regulation of business. How is suggesting that regulations to help protect workers from unsafe practices equate to my apparently suggesting that no one should perform an unsafe job? I said no such thing and suggested no such thing. How does suggesting that rules to help prevent mines from blowing up equate to not having mines? I suggested that we shouldn’t export dangerous employment practices to other countries. I suggested that if we won’t tolerate abusive child labor and prison labor at home–maybe we should buy products made with such labor from foreign countries–is that really that offensive a suggestion to you?

Let me say it again–I never said or suggested that people shouldn’t do dangerous jobs and I am baffled that you think I did. Now I don’t think we should ignore things that we can do to make those jobs safer–I am sorry if you do. Perhaps you have never had a loved one killed in a NEEDLESS and PREVENTABLE industrial accident. Perhaps you have forgotten that workers have been locked into factories and some have burned to death–I don’t think that is an acceptable labor practice–and if it takes government regulation to stop it–I am o.k. with that.

Oh by the way–I have a job and have had jobs, I picked berries and vegatables as a youngster, I worked in high school, I worked my way through college, and have been working since graduating 25 years ago. I have relatives who work in the timber industry, I grew up in a town where thats what most people did. My father worked in the construction industry and I did that several summers. I have relatives who were garbage collectors–when it was hard work before cans had to be set at the curb and trucks with mechanical arms picked up the cans. I know where meat, milk and eggs come from–we raised cattle and chickens among others. My grandparents worked in the canmery. Summer jobs fishing in Alaska were big when I was in high school and college. And I currently have clients in a wide range of industry–so please don’t be so presumptuous as to tell me what I know about.

I am sorry if my belief that some business regulation–especially in regards to worker and public safety–is needed is so offensive to you.

Finally where did I say “third world countries are really bad places”? Are you really reading the posts? Is that what you get from my suggesting that perhaps we shouldn’t buy goods made with prison labor or by children in sweatshop like conditions? I think people in america have forgotten what labor conditions were like in this country, have forgotten what led to much of the regulation we have today and are naive to think in the absence of that regulation–we won’t go back there again.

Peace,
Mark

 

[The_Old_Medic]

What you claim is patently untrue. In fact, the upper middle class and the rich pay 100% of the personal income taxes paid in this country.

There have been so many tax exemptions, and tax cuts for the poor and the lower income earners that unless they simply refuse to follow the tax laws, they would pay no income taxes at all. You have to be earning over $40,000 as a single person to actually be liable for paying income taxes.

Who hires workers? Who invests money in the companies that hire workers? Where does the money for expansion of industry, and of businesses come from?

I’ll tell you, it does NOT come from either the poor, the lower middle class or from the government. It all comes from the upper middle class and from the rich.

If you take away all of their money, there will be no new jobs at all.

You ultra leftists might be amazed to learn that the biggest single income tax cut ever legislated was NOT done by the Republicans. It was done under the Democratic administration of John F. Kennedy, who lowered the top marginal tax rate from 90% to less than 60%.

The income to the government literally exploded. In fact, that is what the Democrats used to pay for the Vietnam war and their “war on poverty” (which has never done anything to eliminate poverty, instead it has perpetuated poverty).

The FACT IS, every time that taxes have been cut, the government actually has ended up getting significantly MORE money in taxes (because of increased business activity, and increased payrolls).

The PROBLEM is, every time this happens, government HAS MASSIVELY INCREASED ITS EXPENDITURES, well beyond the increase in income. This results in a net decrease to the government, but that is not because of a lack of revenue.

The reason why this country is 14 TRILLION dollars in debt ($14.000,000,000,000.00) is simply that our Congress, and out Presidents, have allowed spending to keep going up and up, regardless of the fact that it was outstripping revenue.

There has been absolutely no attempt, since before World War II, for this country to actually live on a realistic budget for more than a few months at a time.

The problem in this country is NOT that we do not tax people enough. The problem is that we spend money like a bunch of drunken sailors, and that even if we taxed the rich 100% of their income, we could still not balance our budget.

That is actual FACT.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I asked if you could come up with a better list. And you couldn’t.

You challenged the idea that Canada ranked so high. And I suggested some possible reasons why Canada showed up so well.

I am not interested in trying to come up with a better list–nor do I have the time for or intererst in such a complex undertaking–the very nature of the complexity of the list and the various components should tell you that alternatives to the list are possible. I questioned Canada’s position on one component on the list in relation to the United States based on my experience with that one component. Not in relation to any other country and not in regards to any other component. And certainly not regarding its overall position on the list. I’m sorry I didn’t realize this list was the gospel–I apologize for any offense given.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

In fact, I would never hire anyone to work for me.

There is too much downside risk. Hiring someone exposes me to all kinds of problems … I have to provide you with a work place that you would find acceptable. Part of the cost of doing business that someone didn’t include in the cost of hiring an employee. Depending on they type of work you may or may not need to provide a workplace. And in 22 years of working with businesses this has never once come up as a hiring concern or cost. Never seen a client sued for having an “unacceptable workplace”. When you say “acceptable” it makes me think “like”–did you mean “safe”

If I screw up and fail to submit one of the many many forms that the government requires, then the fines start at $10,000 and rise steeply from there. One of my friends started a framing shop and messed up on a two cent tax. Cost them $20,000 in fines.

Could I ask you where you got these numbers and what forms you are talking about? I am sure you are correct with regard to some fines (FBAR reporting for example, but if it is inadvertant you can get that waived–if it’s assessed). I’d be currious about the two cent tax and the $20,000–I am sure there is a lot more to the story. I deal with businesses and these government forms daily and something doesn’t smell right about what your saying–in my experience. For example most penalties relating to tax are based on a percentage of the tax due or underpaid–not a flat fine.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Sorry for double posting, but this reply is relevant to your comments and questions as well:

This response just happened to be in my inbox this morning:

Brad wrote: I say increase tax rates. Over 1 million in income it should be 40% [in taxes], over 5 million in income it should be 50%, over 10 million it should be 70% and over 100 million make it 90%. Let’s get rid all the tax scams especially the charitable remainder trusts and all the charities people have to save on taxes and hire friends and families.- in response to my column Tax Cut Talk Shows Obama Desperation

Dear Brad,

You’ve cut to the argument that’s really at the center of the debate.

Liberals have no respect for private property. That’s why some conservatives call you guys fascists and communists. You think just because someone is successful that they owe that success to the rest of the country, rather than their own efforts.

Conservatives start out with the assumption, correctly, that private property is sacrosanct.

Private property starts with ownership of the fruits of our labor. Anything less than being able to retain the whole of our property is slavery.

We fought a civil war over the simple proposition that a man can not be legally deprived of the fruits of their labor.

You, me, everyone is entitled to the entire fruits of their labor, even if we may grant the government some portion of our property to safeguard the rest. Yes, we all voluntarily band together to create a government to protect these rights in property. And yes, in order to accomplish this, we pay taxes.

But when governments start to trample on those rights and assume that the money is theirs to begin with, that’s a tyranny.

Go back and read what the Founders have to say about it.

Sorry I don’t think it is relavant to my comments/questions and makes me continue to wonder if you are really reading my posts–or just jumping to preconceived assumptions. You have addressed nothing I said in the post you were responding to unless I am to infer that you believe any amount of tax is punishment because it is a taking of private property–however the end of your post argues against infering that. I clearly stated I think many are acting like current tax rates (which I have previously posted in comparison to historic tax rates to show that rates are currently low by historical standards) are at 90%–implying I think such a rate would be much to high. I futher discussed what benefits we derive from the taxes–benefits that facilitate your ability to obtain, own and keep that private property—a benfit you acknowlege at the end of your post by saying “we all voluntarily band together to create a government to protect these rights in property…in order to accomplish this, we pay taxes”.

So I think my question stands: “punished”? Above you acknowledged why we pay taxes–and that is not punishment.

Now we can argue if the government is assuming that the money is theirs to begin with–I am unclear if you are actually asserting this–but that is a different question than that of tax rates–and whether they are too high or too low.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

What you claim is patently untrue. In fact, the upper middle class and the rich pay 100% of the personal income taxes paid in this country.
How are you defining “upper middle class”? 2008 tax data shows that the bottom 50% of taxpayers–those with an AGI of less than $33,048 paid income tax–so it is untrue to say the upper middle class and rich pay 100% of the personal income tax–since in point of fact they do not.
There have been so many tax exemptions, and tax cuts for the poor and the lower income earners that unless they simply refuse to follow the tax laws, they would pay no income taxes at all. You have to be earning over $40,000 as a single person to actually be liable for paying income taxes.
This also is simply untrue. A single person making $40,000 claiming the standard deductiion and his/her one exemption would have a taxable income of $30,650 and that equates to $4,183 in federal income tax less a $400 credit (available 2010 but not 2011).

 

[MarkInOregon]

You ultra leftists might be amazed to learn that the biggest single income tax cut ever legislated was NOT done by the Republicans. It was done under the Democratic administration of John F. Kennedy, who lowered the top marginal tax rate from 90% to less than 60%.

.

Not to split hairs but according to the rate charts I have seen the Revenue Act of 1964 lowered the highest rate from 91% to 70% where it remained until the 1980’s.

Peace,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

There have been so many tax exemptions, and tax cuts for the poor and the lower income earners that unless they simply refuse to follow the tax laws, they would pay no income taxes at all. You have to be earning over $40,000 as a single person to actually be liable for paying income taxes.

Maybe this will be more useful. In evaluating the above statement than just citing the tax a single person making $40,000 would pay claiming standard deduction and their exemption–as I did earlier.

In 2010 a single person claiming the standard deduction and their exemption would be subject to income tax starting with $9,351 in income. If this income is in the form of wages–it is going to take roughly $13,400 in income before they actually owe a net federal income tax. At that point they’ll have used up the $400 making work pay credit. Note that credit is not available in 2011. It was to give back some of the socail security tax they paid in–thats why you need wages to get it.

So rather than the number being earning over $40,000–it is more like earning over $13,400 as a single person to actual pay net income tax. That’s a bit of a difference–at least in my book.

Peace,
Mark

 

[copperblade]

I found this interesting:
sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Apparently everyone is paying about the same rate. The really interesting part at the end looks at the stock market vs business profits…

 

[MarkInOregon]

The safety of tunnel mining has improved to the point that it no longer is even in the top ten of unsafe jobs. Whats your point? How does this undermine my position? Is this a bad thing? I would think its a good thing. Is this inspite of the regulation or because of it? Are you suggesting the safety regulation is not needed?Even so, open pit mining is probably safer than tunnel mining. So, over the objections of the governors, the EPA has shut down 79 open pit coal mines … even though the mine owners spent millions to meet all the code requirements imposed by EPA and the other Federal agencies. I’d need more information on the closures and standards. I know there are a lot of Clean Water Act violations with these mines. We could debate those standards though I am not inclined to. And I have never said that regulations cannot and are not abused. I think I have acknowledged that they can be–I just don’t think that is a reason to throw out all regulation.

Where do YOU draw the line? At protecting the public and workers. I do believe there needs to be a balance between protecting the environment and jobs.

You have the option of buying clothing hand made in the USA by people who get paid very well. So, where do you buy your clothing and your shoes? At stores. I also have the choice of purchasing factory produced USA clothing and shoes made by less well paid workers in american factories.

Do you eat fish? Low mercury fish. Boy I miss sword fish.Commercial fishing is probably now the most dangerous job. Your point? I never said we should outlaw jobs that are inherently dangerous. Safety regulations don’t ban the job–they make it safer–are you against that?

Do you live in a house made of wood? [2x4’s?] Do you use any products made of wood? Plywood? Wood furniture? Yes to all. Logging is probably now the second most dangerous job. Your point? Again are you against making the job safer?

Do you use any kind of energy … electricity, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel? Yes. Providing energy to YOU is dangerous. Your point? Again are you against making these jobs safer?

Where do you draw the line? At wanton disregard for worker safety and polution standards.

Should everyone work in a nice cubicle in an airconditioned building? No one should work in a cubicle and I’m not sure nice and cubicle should be used in the same sentence. I’m not sure about the air conditioning.

Construction is one of the ten most dangerous jobs. Your point? Again are you against making these jobs safer?

Do you eat food? What do you think? No I live on love? Where do you get the food? At stores, farmers markets and my parents place. In a store? Predominately. Well, agriculture is one of the ten most dangerous jobs. Your point? Again are you against making it safer?

Have you ever watched the program “Dirty Jobs”? Not really–didn’t find it interesting.

Where do you think eggs come from? Chickens–do you know something I don’t know? For many people they come from beakless chickens stuffed in a cage that doesn’t allow it to move but that is a whole other can of worms.

I’m thinking you have never actually worked out in the real world. I am thinking that you’re not thinking–actually I’m just not sure you really have read what I have posted. You’ve jumped to a lot of conclusions that I don’t think follow from what I have said. Oh and I’ve never worked anywhere but the “real” world as you call it unless you count those few days I worked registration for the registrar–but I wasn’t counting those.

Maybe you should quit school and get a job. Been out of school for 25 years. I will say I don’t think we should ever stop learning though. I’ve had a job that whole time and I had a job when I was in school. Tit for tat–maybe you should go to school–uncalled for and petty–as has been this whole post and I apologize.

Spend a few years as a garbage collector … it’s an essential job, it’s very dirty, and dangerous. Can’t do without it, though. Again your point? Are you against making the job safer? I never said we shouldn’t have these jobs–I just don’t where this comes from. I’ve had other dirty jobs, and relatives who held this job–just what do you imagine that I’m going to learn–that we shouldn’t make the job safer if we can? I think that is crazy.

If you think that third world countries are really bad places, then join the Peace Corps and spend some time in Burundi … and see how long you last. Again your point and why the hostility in your post? I never commented on third world countries–I commented on labor practices that occur in some factories in some foreign countries–and asked if we should purchase products from those places–that doesn’t tell you anything about what I think about those countries as a whole–it tells you what I think about those labor practices. Thank you for your advice. I am glad to know you know me so well. /quote]

 

[Ignats75]

Since this is a Catholic Forum, i thought I would add this little nugget from none other than the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. the teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."7

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Monte RCMS;8002565:

The safety of tunnel mining has improved to the point that it no longer is even in the top ten of unsafe jobs. Whats your point? How does this undermine my position? Is this a bad thing? I would think its a good thing. Is this inspite of the regulation or because of it? Are you suggesting the safety regulation is not needed?

Even so, open pit mining is probably safer than tunnel mining. So, over the objections of the governors, the EPA has shut down 79 open pit coal mines … even though the mine owners spent millions to meet all the code requirements imposed by EPA and the other Federal agencies. I’d need more information on the closures and standards. I know there are a lot of Clean Water Act violations with these mines. We could debate those standards though I am not inclined to. And I have never said that regulations cannot and are not abused. I think I have acknowledged that they can be–I just don’t think that is a reason to throw out all regulation.

Where do YOU draw the line? At protecting the public and workers. I do believe there needs to be a balance between protecting the environment and jobs.

So … you think or believe the government can make these difficult jobs safer? Or do they impose so many rules and regulations that they cause industries to shut down?

investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=570654

A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court case from Michigan produced five different opinions and no clear definition of which waterways were covered. This essentially left the government with a clean slate on which to write its own interpretation — just about everything.

House Agricultural Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., says the expanded EPA guidelines would let the government “regulate essentially any body of water, such as a farm pond or even a ditch.” A bipartisan group of 170 congressmen wrote a letter to the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers urging them not to issue the expanded guidelines.

The American Farm Bureau Federation said in a statement that the guidelines “take an overly broad view of ‘waters of the U.S.’ It would serve as a road map for EPA and the Corps to designate nearly all water bodies, and even some on dry land, as subject to federal regulations that dictate land-use decisions.”

Not just agriculture but **energy production is affected. The EPA recently revoked the coal mining permit for Arch Coal’s Spruce Mine No. 1 in Logan County, W.Va. The permit was issued four years ago and since then Arch Coal, which provides 16% of America’s supply, has followed every jot and tittle of the rules it was told to operate under. It didn’t matter.

After an investment of $250 million in the mountain-top mining operation, which when fully operational would have employed 215 miners directly and 300 indirect jobs in support services, it was ordered to shut down. These were, no pun intended, “shovel-ready” jobs.

As we have warned, the EPA said it was acting under the authority of the Clean Water Act, saying the mine employed “destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend.”

The EPA is currently suspending 79** such surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. It says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant “enhanced” review. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she’s not against coal mining, but wants to see it “done in a way that minimizes impact to water quality.”

This is not about clean water any more than cap-and-trade is about climate change. It’s about increasing government power over our every aspect of our lives. The power to regulate is the power to destroy, and part of the administration’s goal of raising energy prices to the point green energy looks acceptable if not attractive.

President Obama said the whole “birther” controversy was a distraction from other more important things. That’s just the way he wanted it.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Go green, kill jobs
Last Updated: 2:48 AM, June 20, 2011
Posted: June 20, 2011

Green may be good, but it’s not free.

That’s what energy giant American Electric Power told EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson last week.

She wasn’t listening.

The company said new EPA emission-reduction regulations would cost hundreds of jobs at AEP, and hike electric rates by tens of millions of dollars.

“Misleading at best, scare tactics at worst,” she hummed to reporters.

Ah, but she didn’t say wrong.

How could she?

The EPA, after all, is flogging new emission regs that will force AEP to:

• Close five electric plants, with a loss of 6,000 megawatts of generating capacity – triple what Indian Point sends to New Yorkers every day.

GETTY IMAGES
Lisa Jackson

• Kill 600 jobs, sucking $40 million a year in wages out of the economy.
• Retrofit its remaining plants at a cost of $6 billion to $8 billion – every penny of which will eventually be passed on to ratepayers, further sinking the economy.

Much of this is in service of the EPA’s anti-global-warming initiative, requiring with regulation what Congress refused to mandate legislatively: that companies drastically reduce carbon emissions.

“Because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power-plant jobs” and spend billions to meet the requirements, said AEP Chairman Michael Morris.

That means “significant” rate hikes for some 5 million customers in 11 states.

Businesses, already reeling from the crumbling economy, will be hit even harder – with rate hikes of up to 35 percent, AEP said.

We’ll give Jackson this: Such numbers are scary – especially since there is no compelling reason to disbelieve them.

Energy Luddism of any sort is never good, but for a major federal agency to be enthusiastically undercutting President Obama’s professed goal of creating new jobs while turning around a dramatically deteriorating economy is bizarre.

Kudos to AEP’s Morris for calling Jackson out on it.