It's not like it works in every other developed country or anything.oh wait it does. At this point I feel like arguing against government healthcare is like denying climate change while trying to defend the 1% and the corporate world. Why do you love your corporate overlords so much‽
Are you daft ? You don't prefer sick employees, you acknowledge that people are gonna get sick. It's just a reality. So you offer sick leave so that when the inevitable happens the guy who got sick doesn't get his life ruined.
That also means that guy who got sick is able to stay home and recover and get back to work asap.
If you don't offer that possibility, the guy has no choice but to get to work. You think the employer is happy with that ? What's better, having a sick employee miss two days of work, or have a sick employee come in for those two days, do a shit job because he's sick, contaminate his coworkers and therefore coz the coworkers to be in the exact same pickle ?
Why is it americans really fucking love to sacrifice people for the good of corporations ?
Ideally that would work, but what do you actually see happening across the US? You're seeing people having to risk their health for livelihood. The nerve to imply I'm the daft one?
We are in agreement on how it COULD work, but that's just not reality because the system itself is a sick joke.
oh my bad. I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying "why would an employer want to hire people that cant work coz they are sick". Im definitely the daft one.
In every system it's been implemented, the taxes were less than the cost of going through an insurance company, so if the same were to apply here, he'd be right... the question being would the same be applied here?
I would also like to point out that the countrys with the high tax rates tend to be statistically happyer. I for one would gladly pay more tax if it meant my life was better for it.
You do bring up some valid points but how will we know if it's the idea or the culture that works if we don't try it? It's not like what we are doing now is working. Honestly I don't care about options (including my own) I care about what works and we cant find out what works without trying new ways of doing things and looking at the data from others that have already tried them.
We don't know what's objectively best (I feel it doesn't even exist), but we can know by looking at individual states and comparing them to similar countries, as each American state is sovereign.
What will improve and is necessary for Illinois may very well wreck Oregon. Alaska doesn't have anything to gain from following California's example.
Think less national mandate and more state choice. Brother, there's a reason the middle class is leaving California for Idaho in masses and a reason the rich like to hang out on the golden coast.
Totally in agreement about Cali, it's dope AF if you can afford it, if not, well... it sucks... but at least you still have the natural beauty, so even then.. that's more about what is more important in your life.
The 90% kicks in after 5 million. As to get too that 5 million, roughly 3 million will be taken prior. So by ratio, yeah it's alot, but it's still 2 million you're left with before you hit such a bracket.. and if you can't make ends meet with 2 million, do you deserve the 2 million in the first place?
As for too much money to spend ever actually being a problem, yes, it's happened. This is a particularly hilarious tale: Mansa Musa was a devout Muslim who swore one day he'd visit Mecca... and he did... on his journey he took vast caravans along, tossing out riches to the masses along the way; almost as if he were buying adoration. This had a consequence; it started to tank the economies of entire countries as the value of currency tanked.. and as he was on a pilgrimage, he was never in a place long enough for the impact to impact him; it just impacted everyone in his wake... until he got to Mecca and then had to turn around and go back. People weren't as welcoming the second time.
Intel and Boeing weren't built on half a million.
You're sure as fuck not going to see anybody ever actually building up to that 5 million bracket, or even the 1 million, maybe not even 100,000, and what do you intend to do about the millions upon millions of suddenly unemployed, the collapse of the entire economy and market, the mass starvation, and the wrecked supply lines?
Nevermind the billionaires willing to pay people like me a handsome amount to keep your fascist state from destroying everything.
Uh.. what? Plenty of people amass fortunes far greater than 5 million rather easily while doing much less. $100,000 is a much smaller target. How exactly does any of that lead to a bunch of unemployed people and mass starvation anyway? The most prosperous time in the entirety of US history came with a 90% tax bracket that started at a million; obviously there were loopholes, but to utilize the loopholes it required you still give some of that wealth up.
They could get 5 million. But they won't. Everyone from Gates to my Uncle Mike will either pack up and take what's they built to a country that doesn't want tho tear down the successful, or simply reduce the quantity, quality, and size of their business to just shy of their pubg of diminishing returns. Silicon valley moves to Canada, Scandinavia, or Vietnam, and even the truly passionate like Musk will take off to someplace with fewer barriers to success and innovation. What's the point of succeeding here if there's an arbitrary levied by the spiteful and jealous? And you're cherry picking. Following the same logic I could say we were better off with Jim Crow, with no Internet, when only the connected and wealthy had electricity.
The supply lines will dry up as shipping companies (truck, plane, ship) cut their losses, the people building infrastructure will be let go as there is no point to hiring thousands of electricians or construction workers for minute increases in the leadership's quality of life, and there will be pushback from everyone passed the cutoff and everyone who wanted to one day get there.
Retailers will reduce their product and employees. Farms will only produce what is necessary to reach that point.
Why bother for anything better if it will just be taken from you? And there's those of us who, out of principle and/or opportunism, would help the successful to keep what is theirs and restore our more perfect union to what it's founders and defenders intended. A liberal union dedicated to individual rights, national exceptionalism, and justice for all.
I think that's a bit pessimistic. There are already countries where amassing such a fortune is easier than it is here; but it's just not done. Think about this.... Bill Gates could buy Venezuela right now and there's nothing anyone could do to stop him; from the citizens themselves all the way up to the UN.. Yet he hasn't. Why? Well the supply chains alone would be a logistical nightmare... and then he'd have to take time and directly focus on what a clusterfuck Venezuela is. Is it worth it? No.
Comments
And shut down the entire business...
Bernie's here to pander to those with severe resentment and bitterness under the guise of compassion!
That also means that guy who got sick is able to stay home and recover and get back to work asap.
If you don't offer that possibility, the guy has no choice but to get to work. You think the employer is happy with that ? What's better, having a sick employee miss two days of work, or have a sick employee come in for those two days, do a shit job because he's sick, contaminate his coworkers and therefore coz the coworkers to be in the exact same pickle ?
Why is it americans really fucking love to sacrifice people for the good of corporations ?
We are in agreement on how it COULD work, but that's just not reality because the system itself is a sick joke.
What will improve and is necessary for Illinois may very well wreck Oregon. Alaska doesn't have anything to gain from following California's example.
Think less national mandate and more state choice. Brother, there's a reason the middle class is leaving California for Idaho in masses and a reason the rich like to hang out on the golden coast.
The lives of the American people are not yours to control.
As for too much money to spend ever actually being a problem, yes, it's happened. This is a particularly hilarious tale: Mansa Musa was a devout Muslim who swore one day he'd visit Mecca... and he did... on his journey he took vast caravans along, tossing out riches to the masses along the way; almost as if he were buying adoration. This had a consequence; it started to tank the economies of entire countries as the value of currency tanked.. and as he was on a pilgrimage, he was never in a place long enough for the impact to impact him; it just impacted everyone in his wake... until he got to Mecca and then had to turn around and go back. People weren't as welcoming the second time.
You're sure as fuck not going to see anybody ever actually building up to that 5 million bracket, or even the 1 million, maybe not even 100,000, and what do you intend to do about the millions upon millions of suddenly unemployed, the collapse of the entire economy and market, the mass starvation, and the wrecked supply lines?
Nevermind the billionaires willing to pay people like me a handsome amount to keep your fascist state from destroying everything.
Retailers will reduce their product and employees. Farms will only produce what is necessary to reach that point.
Why bother for anything better if it will just be taken from you? And there's those of us who, out of principle and/or opportunism, would help the successful to keep what is theirs and restore our more perfect union to what it's founders and defenders intended. A liberal union dedicated to individual rights, national exceptionalism, and justice for all.