 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
This is rather unfair.
First of all, businessmen are not workers.
Secondly, lawyers are under time pressure to complete tasks because they have deadlines to meet. Ditto with doctors. However, they don't work 60-80 hours weeks all years around. They don't average to much more than 40 hour weeks. Much less for senior partners. |
Wow, UR, you really have no idea what you're talking about.
First off, clearly "businessmen" do not fit YOUR definition of "worker" because they make too much money to actually work in your worldview. Fact is, however, that high-level executives often do work crazy hours to keep up.
My finacee, who is a low-level IT manager, struggles to keep up in 40 hrs/week. If I wasn't around to call her and say "time to go, let's go home" she would probably work late night after night.
Second, lawyers in firms *do* work ridiculous hours, especially at first. Hell, ask Asleepatthewheel. I have several friends who recently completed law school. These people do not work 60hrs one week and then 20hrs the next, to average around 40. Naw, it's more like 60+ one week, and then a relatively easy 40 hr one.
I don't know any doctors, but my impression is that they earn their money. I'd like to see them work a little less, actually, since I worry about some doctor being too tired to properly treat me in an emergency.
But they don't count. They make lots of money are therefore they are evil and lazy and exploiters. You've got it all figured out. 
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drachasor
So, Kerry wanting to close loop-holes and Bush not wanting to is a reason to vote for Bush then?
"Class Warfare Crap" is not always pure envy. There are legitmate imbalances and problems with the tax code and how people should be taxed. For one, the Sub $200k bracket needs more of their money spent on basic needs (percentage-wise) than the richer brackets. A progressive code simply takes this into account. Naturally you need to be careful about how much you tax and the economic effects thereof, but a progressive tax simply makes good sense.
And, according to the Econ Nobel holder, lower taxes for the working class encourages them to work more and spurs the economy.
-Drachasor |
Kerry would not only close loopholes, he would raise taxes. He also admits that he cannot fund all the programs he wants without raising taxes. Remember, Clinton PROMISED a middle class tax cut. He was elected based (in part) on that promise. He lied. He immediately raised taxes, the largest tax increase in many decades. So, how can we trust Kerry.
Besides, the major problem we face today is funding SS. We cannot fund it now without substantial tax increases which the Fed chairman warned would cripple the economy. The ONLY way out of this is to grow the economy substantially. So, the real question is which policy is more likely to result in economic growth. If you address THIS question, rather than just some socialist agenda to impoverish the so-called rich, then I would for one be much more receptive to your arguments.
As to the poor and middle class, the most of them today pay little or no income taxes whatsoever. The people making 100k-300k are the one's really getting hammered by income taxes. Ask anyone in this income bracket how they feel about taxes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
That's sorta what I was saying to Urban Ranger (although I was focusing on the "new up-n-coming lawyer" side because I actually know people in that category).
Crazy story I hear recently:
One of the lawyers I work with recently attended a trial, and apparently the head of the firm opposing us came to court absolutely hammered. He stumbled into the courtroom, in the midst of ongoing testimony, came over to the table where the insurance carrier attorneys were sitting, and kissed one of those attorneys on the cheek (she apparently wanted none of it and ordered him away). Later, he got the attention of the woman's male counterpart and asked him (loudly) to tell her that's "she's so pretty." Later, the judge was speaking, and he used the word absolutely. The drunk slams his hand down on the table in front of him and exclaims "abssoluutely!" At which point his partner hauls him out of court. During a break, the drunk attempts to negotiate settlement with our side. Later that afternoon, our lead counsel gets a call from a partner telling him to please disregard anything the drunk said.
Yikes. Hard to believe the judge didn't hold him in contempt. I guess the judge is retiring soon and just doesn't care that much, but wow.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Once again, in contradicting yourselves, one of you has made a point better than one of us has.
At first lawyers work more hours when their pay is lower. As time goes by, and their pay increases, so does their hours worked. |
And once again, you manage to find a way to contradict yourself without anyone's assistance.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Kerry would not only close loopholes, he would raise taxes. He also admits that he cannot fund all the programs he wants without raising taxes. Remember, Clinton PROMISED a middle class tax cut. He was elected based (in part) on that promise. He lied. He immediately raised taxes, the largest tax increase in many decades. So, how can we trust Kerry. |
Clinton and Kerry are not the same people. Should I say Nixon is proof that you should never trust a Republican? Or that Bush I is proof that all Republicans will raise taxes?
Personally, I think it is nigh inevitable that Kerry will raise taxes on the middle and lower clases *last*, if he is forced to raise them. Bush would do it first.
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Besides, the major problem we face today is funding SS. We cannot fund it now without substantial tax increases which the Fed chairman warned would cripple the economy. The ONLY way out of this is to grow the economy substantially. So, the real question is which policy is more likely to result in economic growth. If you address THIS question, rather than just some socialist agenda to impoverish the so-called rich, then I would for one be much more receptive to your arguments. |
I believe the latest Nobel Prizewinner in Econ addressed this; you reduce taxes a lot on them middle and lower class. Income Tax is far from being the only way those groups are taxed by the Federal Government, and the sub-200k range still pays a good deal of income tax.
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
As to the poor and middle class, the most of them today pay little or no income taxes whatsoever. The people making 100k-300k are the one's really getting hammered by income taxes. Ask anyone in this income bracket how they feel about taxes. |
My father is in the above 200k range and must support 6 kids in College at once. He is in favor of having his taxes increased, because he can put the greater good over his own selfish desires.
That's why he's voting for Kerry. 
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
According to what you call your 'logic' doctors, being paid so much, will not take vacations. Jeez, get real. |
?
You are twisting it out of proportion. If they get paid more, they will tend to work more. That doesn't mean if you are paid a good deal you will never take a vacation.
Additionally, as far as doctors are concerned, general practitioners don't make a great deal of money. Many have trouble getting out of the debt of medical school.
I believe Prescott also says the effect is most noticeable with unskilled labor.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
One good thing to do is to get the government mostly out of the pensions business, as Prescott (roughly) advocates. |
How "roughly" is that?
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
How "roughly" is that? |
He doesn't say. But his model would require a 4% real return on the funds put into the system. Only the private sector has provided those kinds of return in the past.
Last edited by DanS on 14-10-2004 at 03:01
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-10-2004 21:19
All I can say is that you are dead wrong. They all put their political stance into their advice. Economics is nothing more than politics. 
Economics is not a science. Your political stance determines everything that you believe about economics. Look at this damn forum. Look at the real world for christ sake.
|