I am vaguely aware of such a child benefit being paid to people on Welfare, I don't know specifics, but I'm pretty sure it exists here in the US. Thanks for posting the info about the child benefit program in Belgium.
So you think 99 weeks is not long enough while 20 years is too long... This means you think the length should fall somewhere in between those two time frames. Since I don't know what time frame you think is adequate, I'll call it X. Now, answer your own question... What are those people supposed to do after they have been on unemployment for X amount of time and are no longer able to collect?
Besides the US post office, where in the US constitution is the federal government granted authority to compete with private industry?
Belgium does operate under the US Constitution.
Even with higher taxes, those countries still run yearly deficits and rack up debt. You have to realize that at some point, a system funded by debt is unsustainable.
It wasn't as voluntary as you make it out, the city passed an ordinance and the private sector had to comply.
Higher prices on goods and services as well as higher taxes.
In every case I can think of, the rights of the business owner are obliterated. Decision about the operation of his business is handed over to either government and/or the union.
Why shouldn't they?
I agree, for the most part, but I consider that a failure of government to perform it's proper function of protecting the rights of the individual.
Who is talking about banning unions? Placing limitation on the power of public sector unions is not an attack on public sector unions and it's also not a ban on public sector unions.
Since nobody is talking about banning unions, this is purely political rhetoric.
I used to work with a guy who went to work for Ford, after about 2 years he was laid off. Thanks to the union, he was able to still collect 2/3 of his salary by participating in a "job pool". He still had to go to work everyday but he sat in a break room with his other buddies playing cards, watching cable tv, and generally screwing around - doing nothing productive for the company.
Every once in a while, someone would come in looking for volunteers to do some menial labor, like mopping a shop floor, he had the right to refuse to do anything, so he did nothing. For 2 years he hung out with his friends in the break room, collecting 2/3 of his salary, and when his 2 years in the "job pool" were up, he went on unemployment whereby he was able to collect a paycheck for staying at home on the couch. He said it was the best 3 years of his life.
A business gets its money from selling goods to consumers. That's where the money comes from to pay taxes. Raise taxes on tobacco and the cost of the product goes up. Raise taxes on "big oil" and the cost of gasoline goes up. That's how business operates, taxes are part of the cost of doing business and whatever that cost is has to be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher costs.
Yes, I'm a Capitalist.
That is exactly what happens. Open or operate your own business and you would see that what I say is true.
Corporate taxes are levied against unspent profits, this encourages companies to get rid of any money that's left over after covering their expenses by doing things like offering huge end of the year bonuses rather than being punished with a tax for putting that money into savings. Other taxes, such as royalty payments and property taxes, are on the front end and it's these taxes which add to the cost of products and services.
Where have I made that argument?
I think you misunderstood what I meant by double taxation... Lets say you earn $100,000 working overseas and that country charges you 33% in taxes, you pay $33,333 in taxes. If you also get taxed, at say 17%, in the US on that same $100,000, you would pay an additional $17,000, you would be taxed twice on the same income. Paying tax on money that's already been taxed is double taxation.
As the example of Delta showed, often outsourcing jobs overseas results in more jobs being created in the US... You think business should be punished for creating jobs? Also, far more jobs are lost as a result of technology than outsourcing. For example, an assembly line that used 1000 workers becomes automated and now needs only 100 workers. Should we also make business pay a "penalty" for eliminating those US jobs?
The point is, you seem to think all investments follow that model of being a pre-tax investment but they don't. Investments, such as the purchase of stocks/bonds on the market, are done with money that's been earned and already taxed. That taxed principle is then used to purchase the investment. Rather than taxing just the interest earned on that principle, you seem to think investors should be taxed twice on their principle investment.
Since higher rates aren't shown to result in revenue being a higher % of GDP, I have to conclude that you wish them to pay higher taxes for some reason other than increasing tax revenue.
Have you ever heard of the trader principle? It's a capitalist thing. If we can learn from each other, then we both profit. Most people seem to be under the impression that all profit is measured in dollar signs and that all profit comes at the expense of someone else. Of course that is just propaganda that's meant to belittle and ridicule Capitalism as well as the people like me who believe in Capitalism.
You shouldn't care what others think of you, I certainly don't. You could take this opportunity to learn more about what Capitalism actually is, and actually stands for, and from someone who is an actual Capitalist. If you indeed have an open mind, I think you would find that Capitalism is much different from what the Anti-Capitalists have told you.
