Comments I made on "The Hill," August 4th, 2018




Here are some remarks I posted on "The Hill: New Ideas to Make the Democrats the Party of the Future," by Winston Fisher and Jim Kessler  Unfortunately the Disqus link was disconnected.

"RubberBiscuit: A workable community or economy isn't based on what individuals "deserve;" it's based on what will create the most resources and distribute them the most widely and peaceably. If some "undeserving pauper or liberal" generates $1,000 a day in gross income for your business, but only earns $80.00 before taxes, you are keeping 92% of that income for yourself and impoverishing a neighbor. If you go the B-corporate route and get into profit-sharing, you are creating a more affluent consumer for your own and your fellow business-owners' products and services. Pampered rich people may not notice it, but the more widely the nation's wealth is distributed, the better the economy performs. A debt-ridden cancer patient isn't going to spend much money on a trip to the Grand Canyon, and neither will a burger-flipping single mom. And if you're a struggling inn owner nearby, you will lose out on the income these non-customers would otherwise provide.

 

"W0X0F:  Workers are already paying for their retirement -- at a much higher rate, relative to income, than some of the employers you're defending. The income cap for Social Security taxes stands at somewhere around $110,000 dollars a year in wages, but multimillionaires can still collect their benefits. A 50-cent-an-hour tax to keep elderly workers afloat will not be a tall order for either big corporations or the small businesses that will gain from Winston Fisher's other outreach and support proposals. For what it's worth, he didn't even mention unions or minimum wage floors."

Any way to improve these mini-essays?

Posted by Jennifer A. Nolan




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more