Metro Bus driver highest paid city employee $160,000

[livin'thesim]

UHHHHHH!! So let me get this straight, we should cut the taxes of the rich, so that they can get richer, and HOPEFULLY create some jobs, and keep their money here. To pay for this rich man tax cut, we, the middle class, should pay more taxes, and be thankful that we have rich people in this country at all!!! Now this city bus employee who worked his BUTT off to make what he made, is a crook for it? Though if you read the whole article, the city is really at fault for this because they are running short staffed! (Sound familiar ASAer's) Let me put it this way, if you want a strong middle class, vote democrat, if you want the wealthiest 2% to do REALLY well, vote republican. If you're a really big moron, respond to this post telling me how great the republican party is.

Before anyone can answer your question, you would first have to be willing to understand the production/consumption cycle, the effect of the financial sector's meddling in currency value, and the effect of various kinds of taxes on production and consumption.

For example, changes in capital gains taxes will have very different effects on the economy than changes in income taxes.

There is nothing magic about either party. A party is only as good as the policies it implements.

Did you know, for instance that key Democrats altered tax laws to help out some large east coast hedge funds? I bet you didn't! Haha.

See? Nothing magic about democrats either.

Basically, 90% of all Americans are terminally ignorant about the functioning of the economy, and usually resort to a crude intellectual gouge like Dem=good, republican=bad (or the opposite).

Thanks for serving as yet another data point in that trend.


Since you are obviously so smart, here are a couple questions for you:

1) Would increasing the capital gains tax have an affect on the average small company (assume that the company is very profitable)? Help? Hurt? No significant effect?

2) Is the current income tax/Fica system structured as progressive, regressive, or both, depending on how much you make. Explain your answer.

3) If you wanted to spur the growth of jobs would you:
a) cut capital gains taxes and raise corporate taxes
b) cut corporate taxes and raise capital gains taxes
c) cut both
d) raise both

Please explain your answer.

 

[livin'thesim]

Firemen

Police

Trash Collectors

Bus Drivers

Train/Subway Operators

Just to name a few.

Those folks deserve representation just as much as private sector workers.

The problem is the pandering politicians, not the unions.

Please read up on the typical state/local negotiating process before making uninformed statements.

The politicians would not need to pander if unreasonable demands were not being made.

I can understand if you would rather not waste the time in learning about what has been happening in the public sector, and instead rely on a lot of assumptions, but it is not going to change the fact that public sector (but not federal) employees are about to get a gigantic disappointment.

 

[livin'thesim]

Here's a hint...the repubs hate the other 95% who can't compete in a society based in greed.

Na, we conservatives don't hate the poor. We'd love to teach them how to get rich by producing wealth on their own instead of always taking ours.

Liberals prevent the poor from becoming self sufficient by training them to rely on handouts.

Just watch what is happening to the economy in all those European liberal utopias. Disaster. Very high levels of government debt and low production.

Liberalism is just institutionalized envy, nothing more.

 

[Flyprdu]

I love it that conservatives who post in the REGIONAL forum on Flight Info include themselves when talking about the "rich." Hilarious.

The delusions know no bounds.

Hey livin'thesim, I think it's a fair assumption that they're not taking yours. You, like the rest of us, probably don't have much to take.

 

[likeitis]

I love it that conservatives who post in the REGIONAL forum on Flight Info include themselves when talking about the "rich." Hilarious.

The delusions know no bounds.

Hey livin'thesim, I think it's a fair assumption that they're not taking yours. You, like the rest of us, probably don't have much to take.

+1, these people spew words like utopia while living in la la land. Illusions of being rich. I think their definition of rich is well south of mine.

 

[Medeco]

The fact that you have already decided you cant achieve what others have from hard work, is really the tell all.

The fact that liberals want a small minority, "the rich" ,to be taxed down to a level where we are all "equal" is really a sad state we have reached.

You have been brain washed that somehow this will make it all better.

Capitalism isnt perfect, but its the best system out there. If you dont like it, move somewhere else.

 

[Jar Jar]

The fact that you have already decided you cant achieve what others have from hard work, is really the tell all.

The fact that liberals want a small minority, "the rich" ,to be taxed down to a level where we are all "equal" is really a sad state we have reached.

You have been brain washed that somehow this will make it all better.

Capitalism isnt perfect, but its the best system out there. If you dont like it, move somewhere else.

I don't know any liberals who think that we need to transition to communism or any system where there aren't "rich" people, but I do know plenty who think that the top 3% should not control 92% of the wealth in this country.

 

[Flyprdu]

The fact that you have already decided you cant achieve what others have from hard work, is really the tell all.

Says the airline pilot, ruled by a seniority system.

Capitalism isnt perfect, but its the best system out there. If you dont like it, move somewhere else.

News flash, Medeco... this isn't capitalism anymore, nor is this a democracy. It's an Oligarchy.

And if you don't know what that means, here ya go.

 

[livin'thesim]

I don't know any liberals who think that we need to transition to communism or any system where there aren't "rich" people, but I do know plenty who think that the top 3% should not control 92% of the wealth in this country.

Ahh, very interesting view. You say that the top 3% should not control all the wealth.

What, exactly, do you understand "wealth" to be?

Property? Cash? Financial instruments?

Let us consider Bill Gates or Warren Buffet for example. I don't know what their net worth is supposed to be, but let us assume for the moment that it is a few billion dollars each.

The problem is that most people think that this type of rich individual can buy a few billion dollars worth of goods. It does not work that way, because the majority of the wealth of such individuals is held in ways where the value has to be assumed.

If Bill Gates attempted to liquidate his assets into cash, he would be worth much, much, less than his "sticker price" net worth.


You are being played, my friend.


While most people rage with envy over very rich entrepreneurs like Gates or Buffet, they are ignoring the real problem which is the banking/finance/insurance sector.

The finance sector has played a very neat trick on everyone by taking control of CASH FLOW. The thousand little ways they chip away at your personal wealth production is a greater threat to your financial success than the "sticker price" value of guys like Gates or Buffet.

I highly recommend a white paper called "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard. Google it - it is a long pdf, but worth the read.



Anyway, as long as politicians keep everyone hyped up wanting to tax "the rich", all that will happen is that business and jobs will suffer.
People are so busy envying the "rich" that they don't even understand how the banks have commandeered their cash flow. The finance sector and the Federal Reserve are the problem.

Do you understand what fiat currency is? Fractional reserve lending? The inflationary effects of endless credit creation? Is the Fed's quantitative easing policy good for you? Or bad?

Become informed if you want to understand where your money goes. Otherwise you end up being just another uninformed citizen screaming for higher taxes. The bankers are way smarter than you. But you can change that if you are willing to learn.

 

[livin'thesim]

Says the airline pilot, ruled by a seniority system.


News flash, Medeco... this isn't capitalism anymore, nor is this a democracy. It's an Oligarchy.

And if you don't know what that means, here ya go.

Unionization of PRIVATE SECTOR workers is not inherently anti-capitalist. If the labor force of a particular company wishes to organize, then why is that considered hypocritical, as you imply?

I am neutral to slightly pro private sector union. Lots of defects, but for large companies, sometimes unionization id the only viable means.


And yes, we do have a partial oligarchy, especially in the financial sector, where people have the hardest time detecting it.

Most people have no understanding of money or how the government creates it. Also, most people think that "money" and "wealth" are equivalent terms, which is another way that the financial sector plays everyone.

 

[Medeco]

Says the airline pilot, ruled by a seniority system.


News flash, Medeco... this isn't capitalism anymore, nor is this a democracy. It's an Oligarchy.

And if you don't know what that means, here ya go.

Umm, yeh I'm up to speed thanks! Hah! JERK!

I chose to enter the industry, knowing the rules, I'm not here trying to act like I was duped into something. You assume that a pilot here has no other ambition in life, or additional form of income.

I'm not living in a dream world, I do believe in the power of the people to vote out the "ruling class" and we have a chance to change the tide in one week.

Keep the Dems in majority power and we will soon have a man in power who would love a monarchy.

 

[rettofly]

A very similar thing happened at many of the legacy airlines after 9/11. Their management laid off so many of their ground personnel that they always needed additional people to work overtime. The most senior ramp workers got first choice at working overtime. Rather than keep the lower paid junior workers they already had, they ended up paying the highest paid senior workers time and a half to cover their shifts. It ended up costing them more in the long run. And that is why we have rampers making $70,000/year.

It was the stupidity and short sightedness of their managment, not the employees at fault.

The fringe benefits of having an employee on the payroll are very costly these days. Thus, within limits, an employer can pay an awful lot of overtime premiums with fewer employees on the roster and still be better off on the bottom line. A graph illustrating the algorithm looks just like the graph that shows minimum total drag on an airplane.

 

[rettofly]

They didn't teach compound interest where you went to school did they?

Understand this... the rich WILL ALWAYS GET RICHER!!!
The debate should be how to make more people rich, not to punish those that have at the expense of the poor.

Here's a hint... the libs hate the rich, so why would they want to create more of them?[/QUOTE]

Since so many libs (at least those in the "political class") are rich, one could surmise that they have a vested interest in limiting the size of that demographic in order to preserve their status. Their determined efforts to promote the growth of the dependent class seems to support that.

 

[rettofly]

Do I think this driver was over paid, of course. One sentence that everyone seems to be over looking is the one about limiting they're pay to $70,000. They tried that a few years ago and no one would take the job. Imagine if that happened in the airlines.

Speaking of limiting pay, didn't the Obama Pay Czar make a move not long ago to limit compensation in the financial world?

Apparently Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are not part of the financial world, since their high rollers were exempt from this initiative. Does anyone have any suggestions that might explain this anomaly?

 

[buscap]

The crux of my entry into this thread, is the hypocrisy of union members lamenting wages achieved by union actions in the public sector; going so far as to invoke some Rand references and the election in Nov as a solution.

Obviously many public sector professions are denied union representation. At least I don't recall any union drives while in the Army. But many public sector professions which have private sector near equals, are justly entitled to representation.

Now, being a taxpayer I certainly wish public sector "management" would actually run the "company" like a "business" and perhaps try to keep costs down, rather than treat their workforce as just a voting block to be pandered too. But perhaps the same motivation which makes corporations loathe to allow unions to hold a seat on the board is at work here?

Perhaps I am wrong and public sector unions should be illegal due to the inherent problems with a voter/worker vs management/politician relationship? This is a discussion board after all.

But none the less, a card carrying union member playing the Rand card is like Elton John speaking out against gay marriage.