It would have made more sense to make the "protester" the person of the year in 2009 or 2010. Instead, Time waits until 2011. A year where protests in countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya overthrew dictators and are now leading to Iranian style theocracies. Does that make the world any better off? Domestically, it's been a year highlighted by the Occupy Wall Street protests. A movement with a confused message at best. Somewhat fitting that Time releases this right on the heels of the occupiers trying to shut down ports in a befuddled attempt to sock it to the so-called 1%... a move that, if successful, would have only raised consumer prices for the 99%. Brilliant.
You might want to reexamine what you are calling a "right". Who is going to provide you with food, shelter, and a job? A "right" does not involve staking claim to the fruits of someone else's labor. "The pursuit of happiness" is not a guarantee that you will achieve it. That part is up to you.
Like it or not, a job is not a "right". Nor does your job belong to you. It's belongs to your employer. Unless you have a contract, they can remove it at anytime. It may be cruel, but it works out for the best.
What's being discussed is equal opportunity to a job, not a job as a right. Two very different things. I don't think anyone wants to go to the doctor's office only to find themselves being examined by a former construction worker with no medical training. You might question it as he pulls a needle out, but... "the housing market is down, and I have a right to a job".
There is a small amount of logic in saying that the unemployed are let go because they were "least prized" by the company. Unfortunately, many companies buy into this logic when hiring.
In reality, companies are looking to cut costs. It's not always (and probably infrequently) JUST about cutting non-productive employees. In fact, I've seen cases where some of the best and most productive employees are let go. Again, it's about cutting costs. Sometimes that means eliminating entire divisions; sometimes that means letting go the highest paid and most senior employees.
Putting a bias against the unemployed is a poor hiring tactic.
@Charles "The average small business owner or chief executive brings home an annual salary of $233,600, according to Salary.com's 2006 Small Business Compensation Survey." Not the magic $250K number, but pretty darn close. Enact tax laws now with that as the "rich" benchmark, and not much time will pass (given inflation) before large numbers of small business owners start feeling the impact. Yes, CEOs are included in the same survey as many small businesses (particularly those large enough to employ people) operate as an S corp. Regardless, these are the people we are looking to tax more... the very same people making business decisions that effect employment.
I don't know where you get your information about social security running a surplus. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this year social security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out. Going forward, the CBO projects social security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.
The government is a very poor stand in for Robin Hood. Charity should be in the hands of the people, not forced by politicos that squander it. I don't believe anyone (rich or poor) is any better off paying more taxes until the government makes a serious effort to cut waste and curb corruption. Excuse me... there is one (and only one) group that does indeed benefit from increased taxes and that is politicians... the last people you want benefiting from it.
@Charles The payroll taxes paid by "the poor" don't even come close to paying for those services. According to 2007 stats (most recent I could find), the top 1 percent of income earners paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent of earners paid only 3 percent of federal income taxes. More than one-third of U.S. earners paid no federal income taxes at all.
It really depends on what the definition of "middle class" is. Small businesses are indeed the largest employers in the country. However, many of these have incomes that fall on individual tax returns... and many of these are in excess of of what many deem as "rich". Already one commenter thinks $90K a year to be rich. I'd venture to say a large majority of small businesses (especially those large enough to have several employees) show a balance of over $90K a year. Are they "rich"? Should they be taxed more? Is $250K a year "rich"? Maybe in Iowa, but what about LA or NYC? What some may consider to be rich enough to share a heavier tax burden may find that this directly impacts the ability for their boss to maintain their employment.
This kinda illustrates my point. It's not the government's business to know or care what income anyone makes. Just like it's not my or your business to know what other people make. Unless I'm a shareholder, I really don't care what income any random corporation makes either. Tracking income for "tax purposes" serves nothing more than to fuel wealth envy and class warfare. As a result, it fuels the power of politicians. It's no business of the government's (or ours) to define the magic number where someone is deemed "rich" and thus should have more of their income confiscated.
Taxation should be based off of consumption (with the exception of essentials such as food).
Something to consider when taxing the rich... how many people do the poor employ?
Nobody wants taxes to increase on themselves, but taxing someone else... sure, no problem! The "evil rich" are a common political punching bag that plays into wealth envy and class warfare.
The concept of an income tax is flawed at its core. You exchange a portion of your life (labor) in exchange for a wage (income). By imposing an income tax, the government is laying claim to a portion of your life. How is this different from part-time slavery? Oh wait, in exchange the government is suppose to supply services that are for the common good of the people, right? In reality, much of this money is spent on entitlement programs (large and small) that politicians leverage to secure continued public support for themselves and/or their political party. In essence, they are bribing you with your own money.
The income tax is more about control than anything else. Want to discourage something? Simply tax it more. Encourage something? Make it deductible! Need votes? Reduce taxes. Etc. etc.
Rich or poor, you have a right to all of your income. There are better systems out there (sales tax, fair tax, etc.).
In a little over a century we've gone from the fairly natural looking "strongman" to the steroid enhanced freak show of the modern bodybuilder. Progress?
I know southern expansion seems radical now, but given the views of the day, it seems to be the logical follow up to western expansion. Why stop when you hit the Pacific? Just hang a left!
In other news... they are making a TF3 movie after the steaming pile of crap that was TF2? I'd like to say it can't get any worse, but I'm sure they will find a way.
It's now called "global climate disruption". See, "global warming" makes you sound stupid in the winter and "climate change" is too... er... um... Look just buy a dang Prius and stop asking questions!
Kinda sad parents are now posting their kids most embarrassing moments online. In the future, I hope the kids have enough sense to send the therapy bills to mom and dad.
I was thinking this was a really good optical illusion until I opened the images above in Photoshop. I hate to say it, but the hearts ARE different shades of green and blue. Possibly the JPG compression and/or the color profile has distorted the image... but when it comes to that image, it's not your eyes.
The compression on the wolves image have made the wolves on the gradient background sightly different in color than those on the right. However, it is not as dramatically different as with the hearts.
Like it or not, a job is not a "right". Nor does your job belong to you. It's belongs to your employer. Unless you have a contract, they can remove it at anytime. It may be cruel, but it works out for the best.
What's being discussed is equal opportunity to a job, not a job as a right. Two very different things. I don't think anyone wants to go to the doctor's office only to find themselves being examined by a former construction worker with no medical training. You might question it as he pulls a needle out, but... "the housing market is down, and I have a right to a job".
In reality, companies are looking to cut costs. It's not always (and probably infrequently) JUST about cutting non-productive employees. In fact, I've seen cases where some of the best and most productive employees are let go. Again, it's about cutting costs. Sometimes that means eliminating entire divisions; sometimes that means letting go the highest paid and most senior employees.
Putting a bias against the unemployed is a poor hiring tactic.
I don't know where you get your information about social security running a surplus. According to the Congressional Budget Office, this year social security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out. Going forward, the CBO projects social security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.
The government is a very poor stand in for Robin Hood. Charity should be in the hands of the people, not forced by politicos that squander it. I don't believe anyone (rich or poor) is any better off paying more taxes until the government makes a serious effort to cut waste and curb corruption. Excuse me... there is one (and only one) group that does indeed benefit from increased taxes and that is politicians... the last people you want benefiting from it.
This kinda illustrates my point. It's not the government's business to know or care what income anyone makes. Just like it's not my or your business to know what other people make. Unless I'm a shareholder, I really don't care what income any random corporation makes either. Tracking income for "tax purposes" serves nothing more than to fuel wealth envy and class warfare. As a result, it fuels the power of politicians. It's no business of the government's (or ours) to define the magic number where someone is deemed "rich" and thus should have more of their income confiscated.
Taxation should be based off of consumption (with the exception of essentials such as food).
Nobody wants taxes to increase on themselves, but taxing someone else... sure, no problem! The "evil rich" are a common political punching bag that plays into wealth envy and class warfare.
The concept of an income tax is flawed at its core. You exchange a portion of your life (labor) in exchange for a wage (income). By imposing an income tax, the government is laying claim to a portion of your life. How is this different from part-time slavery? Oh wait, in exchange the government is suppose to supply services that are for the common good of the people, right? In reality, much of this money is spent on entitlement programs (large and small) that politicians leverage to secure continued public support for themselves and/or their political party. In essence, they are bribing you with your own money.
The income tax is more about control than anything else. Want to discourage something? Simply tax it more. Encourage something? Make it deductible! Need votes? Reduce taxes. Etc. etc.
Rich or poor, you have a right to all of your income. There are better systems out there (sales tax, fair tax, etc.).
The compression on the wolves image have made the wolves on the gradient background sightly different in color than those on the right. However, it is not as dramatically different as with the hearts.