What must be done to Unite the Country

[USAFgolferVol]

Wait, say what? Are you anti-overtime?

When it's abused an unnecessary

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

We've known that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas for well over 100 years now. Just because you didn't learn about it in high school doesn't mean that's not true. Some scientists started talking of the potential for anthropogenic climate change as early as the 50s and 60s, but it wasn't until the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere (which tends to increase global temperatures via the greenhouse effect) started to overtake the effects from aerosol pollutants (which tend to decrease global temperatures via the scattering of solar radiation) that it became clear how dire the potential problem was. Those warnings mostly started in the 80s, but didn't really start to get into the mainstream consciousness until the 90s (when the scientific community pretty much reached a consensus on it) and the 2000s.

Greenhouse gas... yes. But now it is a pollutant.

 

[RavinDave]

Greenhouse gas... yes. But now it is a pollutant.

CO2 sequestration could become a big business.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

When it's abused an unnecessary

Well of course, but how often is it abused? Or unnecessary?

Guess what? That person that works overtime has his/her benefits paid for in 40 hours. The cost of the worker's benefits are fixed whether they work 40 hours or 60 hours. So do you add more staff and increase fixed costs or pay a few people overtime to get more work done?

 

[Vol737]

Overtime? It's income, often abused and unnecessary. Tried and true efficient managerial concepts can limit it

I get what you’re saying, but I’ve seen a whole lot of the smartest guys in the room (MBA’s) F up staffing levels. If they run an operation at redline with minimal staffing for the cost benefit, let mgt pay that tax on overtime for all the times that gamble bites them in the @$$. You’ll see staffing levels find a new equilibrium. But let the guys/gals that come in on their day off keep their money.

 

[KB5252]

Ahhh. So you're going to refuse Medicare, Medicaid and your Social Security benefits when you're of age. Good to know.

Our society is filled with basic socialist machinations. They are good things, and benefit our society as a whole.

It's not communism, it's social programs (Read: Socialism). If you think they're a bad idea, I'll gladly receive your benefits that you've actually paid into over the years.

If we were allowed to keep that money and we invested it wisely we wouldn't need those bloated programs and worked fine out much better. Why is it a good thing, or even a necessity?

 

[AM64]

I didn’t know managerial concepts could produce workers out of thin air or consisted of refusing business.

Yep. Somebody doesn't know the meaning of surge. Just in time manufacturing almost guarantees the need for overtime. UPS can add workers at Christmas because they don't have to be skilled - not the same for most industry.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

I didn’t know managerial concepts could produce workers out of thin air or consisted of refusing business.

Wow! To my earlier point, nuance completely escapes you. Throwing people at a high demand scenario isn't always necessary. Strategic scheduling and implementing continuous improvement practices have proven to be a more practical and profitable approach. Refer to the documented opinions of successful automotive executives

 

[RavinDave]

Greenhouse gas... yes. But now it is a pollutant.

And CO2 is a lot less potent in its greenhouse effect than methane is. That’s why cows are bad. And gases emanating from landfills. Capturing landfill gas and converting it to electricity on-site or into “renewable natural gas” is popular with the EPA but I’m not complaining because it keeps bringing business to my door for catalysts and adsorbents.

 

[Serene]

Greenhouse gas... yes. But now it is a pollutant.

A pollutant is just something that is somewhere we don't want it to be. It's like "weed" or "pest"--it's not a question of whether something is one by it's nature, it's a question of whether it's somewhere we don't want it to be. If you had a bottle of water you wanted to drink but it had blood in it, you would say the blood is a "pollutant", even though blood is obviously a good thing that we need in our bodies.

And in the case of carbon dioxide, it's not even that we don't want it in the atmosphere; we actually need it. We just want it at approximately "natural" levels (this is simplifying and goes back to your point about natural climate change; carbon dioxide levels do fluctuate naturally and can change quite a bit over long periods of time, but it's problematic to our society if the climate has large rapid changes) and can technically consider it a pollutant when we're adding far too much of it to the atmosphere. Again, it's not something you can call a pollutant as a blanket term, and even the Clean Air Act doesn't treat it as such. We do need carbon dioxide.

But to give an example of what we really don't want to happen, you can look at Venus. Its atmosphere is almost entirely carbon dioxide (the result of runaway greenhouse effect--increasing temperatures from greenhouse gases causing the release of more greenhouse gases causing an increase in temperature ad infinitum) and it has the hottest surface temperature of any planet in our solar system. Now, I'm not at all suggesting that we're anywhere close to becoming Venus, but it is a real life example we have where we can see the effects of the greenhouse effect and high concentrations of carbon dioxide. We don't have to get anywhere near those levels of concentrations to have widespread negative effects.

 

[C-south]

Wow! To my earlier point, nuance completely escapes you. Throwing people at a high demand scenario isn't always necessary. Strategic scheduling and implementing continuous improvement practices have proven to be a more practical and profitable approach. Refer to the documented opinions of successful automotive executives

It all looks good on paper. I work near BMW and all their suppliers and it’s a constant jumping through hoops. You can use all these lean tools, six sigma, copying Toyota’s TOS, etc and it never works out.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Or the fact the 10% that make up the 90% of wealth in this country, pay far less than those making 30,000 to 75, 000 as a percentage of their income. Even worse is the fact many of them have said they would gladly pay more to reduce deficit and debt. Proof in the pudding is the fact they gave their tax rebates back to their employees as bonuses, which are taxed like income. I totally get some of the disdain for these individuals, but their willingness to pay their fair share should, pardon the pun, trump the disdain many right-wingers have for them. The inability to grasp the concept of nuance inhibits unity

The inability of everyone to pull the same inhibits unity. 10% is 10%. It should be the same for everyone over a set amount. If you wish to pay more, nothing prohibits you. At the same time, I DON'T get the choice to pay less. Its called fair share and is more unifying if everyone shares the same burden. Makers vs. Takers is the absolutely one thing that will go the furthest toward preventing unity.

 

[Serene]

And CO2 is a lot less potent in its greenhouse effect than methane is. That’s why cows are bad. And gases emanating from landfills. Capturing landfill gas and converting it to electricity on-site or into “renewable natural gas” is popular with the EPA but I’m not complaining because it keeps bringing business to my door for catalysts and adsorbents.

Yes, methane is pound-for-pound a much "worse" greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide still currently contributes more to the greenhouse effect because there's so much more of it. But methane comes in a decently close second place and it is quite important to manage.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

Well of course, but how often is it abused? Or unnecessary?

Guess what? That person that works overtime has his/her benefits paid for in 40 hours. The cost of the worker's benefits are fixed whether they work 40 hours or 60 hours. So do you add more staff and increase fixed costs or pay a few people overtime to get more work done?

Not true. An increase in OT income gets tossed into that employee's 401k before taxes. Health benefits are unaffected. Absorption of overhead is critical in operating budgets. Those budgeted numbers are based off of 40/HR weeks. The most profitable companies crunch those numbers before authorizing overtime.

 

[Serene]

The inability of everyone to pull the same inhibits unity. 10% is 10%. It should be the same for everyone over a set amount. If you wish to pay more, nothing prohibits you. At the same time, I DON'T get the choice to pay less. Its called fair share and is more unifying if everyone shares the same burden. Makers vs. Takers is the absolutely one thing that will go the furthest toward preventing unity.

Again, if you charge one flat tax rate across all taxpayers, the bottom 90%+ of income earners would see their tax bill go up to maintain the current tax revenue. I'm sure the argument will be "then lower the tax revenue," but that's a completely different argument that doesn't depend on the allocation of tax liabilities.

 

[82_VOL_83]

The proposed tax structure would result in a tax increase for approximately 90% of people. I doubt it would be very popular.

And that is wrong how?

 

[volfanhill]

What has to be done? Well Trump supporters have to admit one of two things. Either Trump lost, and knows it hence his concession and withdraw of legal cases, or he is cuck willing to submit to the deep state. This isn't hard. His supporters even get to pick one.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Not true. An increase in OT income gets tossed into that employee's 401k before taxes. Health benefits are unaffected. Absorption of overhead is critical in operating budgets. Those budgeted numbers are based off of 40/HR weeks. The most profitable companies crunch those numbers before authorizing overtime.

Not all companies include OT in 401K contributions. But even still, that is likely the only cost that may be affected by overtime.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The proposed tax structure would result in a tax increase for approximately 90% of people. I doubt it would be very popular.

Then tweak it to make the first $30,000 taxed at 0%.

Here is what the tax form would look like:
1) How much money did you make from all sources?
2) Subtract $30,000 from line 1. If result is negative, enter 0
3) Multiply line 2 by .1.
4) Attach your check here. ---->

 

[Serene]

And that is wrong how?

I don't think that makes it wrong. I don't agree with it as policy, but it's perfectly fine to have that opinion of how taxes should work. I'm just saying that I think it's unrealistic to expect to make a change that will result in a tax increase for the bottom 90% of earners and a tax decrease for the top 10% of earners.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

The inability of everyone to pull the same inhibits unity. 10% is 10%. It should be the same for everyone over a set amount. If you wish to pay more, nothing prohibits you. At the same time, I DON'T get the choice to pay less. Its called fair share and is more unifying if everyone shares the same burden. Makers vs. Takers is the absolutely one thing that will go the furthest toward preventing unity.

Your penchant to use the "makers vs. the takers" as as an applicable example indicates an inability to apply distinction and nuance to the specificity of the issue. No disrespect intended. I believe your experience, or lack thereof, limits your depth on the matter

 

[Serene]

Then tweak it to make the first $30,000 taxed at 0%.

That's sort of what we already do, just with tiered brackets. With a standard deduction and a flat tax, the middle class would still see sizable increases to tax to maintain the same tax revenue (though those making below the standard deduction obviously still wouldn't owe).

 

[USAFgolferVol]

It all looks good on paper. I work near BMW and all their suppliers and it’s a constant jumping through hoops. You can use all these lean tools, six sigma, copying Toyota’s TOS, etc and it never works out.

Yet, it has worked out. Documented statistics say so. The total reverse of profitability and efficiency say so. Operating profits say so. Employee relations say so. There's a reason unions haven' t been able to penetrate the Japanese owned, American managed and manned companies.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I don't think that makes it wrong. I don't agree with it as policy, but it's perfectly fine to have that opinion of how taxes should work. I'm just saying that I think it's unrealistic to expect to make a change that will result in a tax increase for the bottom 90% of earners and a tax decrease for the top 10% of earners.

Dude, can the working class stiff get some tax breaks for once? damn.. You all bend over backwards to appease the bottom wrung of people that are sucking off of the system with welfare benefits and EIT. That is mostly what they don't pay any taxes. The benefits they receive would more than compensate for what little they would have to pay. But damn, that kind of tax plan would benefit the average working stiff.

 

[RavinDave]

Yes, methane is pound-for-pound a much "worse" greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide still currently contributes more to the greenhouse effect because there's so much more of it. But methane comes in a decently close second place and it is quite important to manage.

Yes I know. I just shipped a truckload of desiccant beads to a landfill in Kentucky that was recently acquired by my customer, only to discover the desiccant vessels had caught on fire. About half or more of my business nowadays is from ”biogas” plants, with dairy and pig farms getting a piece of the action now too.