Income is Income

[OldRegular]

As a comparison, in 1972, my basic pay was $240 and my BAQ was about $120

My tiny fiddle is plain a sad song: My Heart Cries for You!. In 1952 my basic pay, with sea pay, was ~$100/mo with food and board!

 

[Salty]

My tiny fiddle is plain a sad song: My Heart Cries for You!. In 1952 my basic pay, with sea pay, was ~$100/mo with food and board!

maybe so, but how much was a haircut? it cost me one dollar every week!!!

 

[saturneptune]

My tiny fiddle is plain a sad song: My Heart Cries for You!. In 1952 my basic pay, with sea pay, was ~$100/mo with food and board!

My basic pay was 0 in 1952. LOL. However, Salty mentioned 240 in 1972, and that was after a bigger than normal raise for the military thanks to President Nixon. When I made it to E3 in 1971, my base pay was 178 per month. Sea pay at the time was 30 a month when deployed for more than 30 days. I was not married in that particular year, but I did know married guys that were actually getting food stamps.

So OR, what did you do in the Navy? For a while, I was just a deck hand, then became an IC man (telephones, gyros, machine room instruments, weather and navagation equipment, etc) It was a good education, because it served me well in college and getting a civilian job.

Oh yes, one last question, would you care to recount the details for us of your most exciting night on liberty overseas?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Strange coming from a left wing ideology. Now if you were a "capitalist pig" I could understand. You are just being contentious Crabby.

Your comment simply shows how little you know about me and how narrow your thinking is.

I am a Compassionate Capitalist. I know enough history to be quite familiar with the Coal Field Wars in WV and about the Robber Barons of the 19th century ... and enough about what is going on in China today to know that unregulated Capitalism ends in very bad things happening to people. It does not matter if the unregulated Capitalism is in a democracy or in a dictatorship ... it turns out bad for the workers.

Just because a person believes that people in need should be taken care of does not mean they are not believers in a compassionate Capitalism.

You expressed surprise or seemed to that I made the comment about investments. I have invested in the stock and bond markets for over 40 years. Have you any experience in handling your own investment and putting your own money at risk?

Am I still in the market ... yes. So, as a stock holder I am part owner of those companies that I own stock in ... rather Capitalistic isn't it? Are there companies I would not invest in because of ethical considerations. Yes ... but that is a different topic. You might want to start a thread on it.

 

[OldRegular]

So OR, what did you do in the Navy? For a while, I was just a deck hand, then became an IC man (telephones, gyros, machine room instruments, weather and navagation equipment, etc) It was a good education, because it served me well in college and getting a civilian job.

Oh yes, one last question, would you care to recount the details for us of your most exciting night on liberty overseas?

I went straight from boot camp to a newly commissioned WWII "Victory Ship". Served as a deck hand until a few month before I was released then because a lot of reservists from WWII were getting out I was put in charge of Fire Control for our old 40 mm guns; about which I knew nothing.

The work was hard {small deck crew, big ship, heavy cargo} but in some respects it was good duty. We carried supplies to the 6th Fleet in the Med. so really did not spend long periods at sea.

I am thankful that I did not wind up in Korea though the Navy had it relatively easy in that war. I have to say that my time in the service was good for me, helped make a man of me. It seems to me that a tour of duty in the military makes most folks better and a small minority worse!

 

[OldRegular]

maybe so, but how much was a haircut? it cost me one dollar every week!!!

Salty I don't recall paying anything for my haircuts while in the Navy, at least those I got on ship.

I must say your hair grew fast.

My dad cut our hair until a brother finished barber school after WWII. Dad used those hand powered clippers. He expected that you not move while he was cutting and you met his expectations!:godisgood:

 

[Salty]

Salty I don't recall paying anything for my haircuts while in the Navy, at least those I got on ship.

I must say your hair grew fast.

No, my hair did not grow fast - they just wanted you to have a haircut every week

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The Navy wasn't so strict about hair length once we were deployed. But if you wanted to leave the ship for liberty, you had to pass a personal inspection. The few days before a port were some busy days for our barber.

 

[Oldtimer]

>I don't like the income inequality either but it is not the task of the Federal government to redistribute it.

AGREE! It is the task of labor unions. It will be a cold day in hell before before the corporations give a rat's tail about their serfs.

Nor is the task of labor unions.

An easy way to see ONE of the reasons why is to look that the salaries of the top union leaders and compare to the wages of the average worker in their unions. These workers must pay union dues which line the union leaders pockets with salaries, perks**, an often even better pension plans. And further, unions reach into the pockets of the rank and file workers to contribute massive amounts to the Democratic party to keep them in power. Does a individual union worker have any more say about where their money goes than an average taxpayer?

Don't take my word for it. A good search engine can turn up figures to back up this post and more. Oh, so much more. (sigh)

Labor unions are one of the causes of the downfall of this nation.

When a man can't work for another man for an agreed upon rate, because he doesn't have a union card, there's something wrong. If a man cannot volunteer his services, free of charge, because he doesn't have a union card, something is wrong. If a member of one trade union cannot lift a finger to help a member of another trade, on a job site, then something is wrong.

No where in the scriptures have I found that God expects men to carry a union card. Yes, render unto Caesar. As far as I know Caesar refers to governments AND doesn't include union leaders, too.

perks** - lavish living - ie fine dining, fine hotels, etc. reimbursed via expense reports. How many average union workers can wine and dine at 5 star establishments, at the union's expense?

 

[OldRegular]

Labor unions are one of the causes of the downfall of this nation.

I disagree with the above statement. If you believe that all big corporations or big employers have respect for the working people then you are not aware of History. Unions played a huge roll in improving the lot of the working person. That being said the "closed shop" is an abomination and the "union shop" only a slight improvement.

Sadly unions now have become corrupt, with corrupt leaders, and an arm of the democrat party. Taft Hartley gave states the tool to outlaw closed and union shop so much of the problem with the unions is the corrupt politicians.

 

[Oldtimer]

I disagree with the above statement. If you believe that all big corporations or big employers have respect for the working people then you are not aware of History. Unions played a huge roll in improving the lot of the working person. That being said the "closed shop" is an abomination and the "union shop" only a slight improvement.

Sadly unions now have become corrupt, with corrupt leaders, and an arm of the democrat party. Taft Hartley gave states the tool to outlaw closed and union shop so much of the problem with the unions is the corrupt politicians.

Old Regular, I am well aware of history. Well aware of the role of BIG business and BIG government have/are playing in the fairly recent past. I understand how unions did play a part in improving the life of workers in many industries. Especially those where employees worked in brutal sweat-shop conditions. There were good men, with good intentions, who helped to bring about improvements. Improvements that needed to be made.

Somewhere along the line greed and a quest for power has overshadowed the good intentions of those good men.

I'm talking about the here and now. Perhaps my response should have been phrased:

Nor is it the task of labor unions, today, to resolve income inequality as suggested by Bill.

Not when union leaders earn 6 figure salaries while the median income of union workers is just slightly above the median of all workers. Somewhere around $36,000. (Don't have the link handy with the exact figures.)

Not when corruption is (has been) reported over and over again, since I became old enough to become aware of such things. It seems the pace of that reporting has been on a steady increase. Though not as often by the mainstream media. Corruption = big business, governmental officials, and unions. (Not all, but enough to put us where we are today.)

 

[billwald]

Which state forbids a union shop?

 

[Salty]

Which state forbids a union shop?

I believe the question should be "Which state (or Commonwealth) forbids a CLOSED union shop"

 

[billwald]

Closed shops are illegal by federal law.

>Nor is it the task of labor unions, today, to resolve income inequality as suggested by Bill.

>Not when union leaders earn 6 figure salaries while the median income of union workers is just slightly above the median of all workers. Somewhere around $36,000. (Don't have the link handy with the exact figures.)

Why do you apply this standard to labor leaders and not to political leaders????????

 

[OldRegular]

Which state forbids a union shop?

Right to Work States

A Right to Work law secures the right of employees to decide for themselves whether or not to join or financially support a union. However, employees who work in the railway or airline industries are not protected by a Right to Work law, and employees who work on a federal enclave may not be.


Alabama | Arizona | Arkansas | Florida | Georgia | Guam | Idaho | Indiana | Iowa | Kansas | Louisiana | Mississippi | Nebraska | Nevada | North Carolina | North Dakota | Oklahoma |South Carolina | South Dakota | Tennessee | Texas | Utah | Virginia | Wyoming

http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm

Map is shown at the link!

 

[Salty]

Took a look at the map - and most of the right to work states/commonwealths were Red States. and of course the majority of Blue states are union required

coincidence?

 

[OldRegular]

It appears that many of the provisions of both laws are being ignore. It is the collusion of corrupt union leaders, politicians, and in some cased bsiness leaders have resulted in many problems that state and the Federal overnment face today.

The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, sponsored by U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, was designed to amend much of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (the Wagner Act) and discontinued parts of the Federal Anti-Injunction Act of 1932.

The Taft-Hartley Act was the first major revision to the Wagner Act, and
after much resistance from labor leaders and a veto from President Harry S. Truman, was passed on June 23, 1947.

The Taft-Hartley Act provides for the following:

• 1. It allows the president to appoint a board of inquiry to investigate union disputes when he believes a strike would endanger national health or safety, and obtain an 80-day injunction to stop the continuation of a strike.
  2, It declares all closed shops illegal.
  3, It permits union shops only after a majority of the employees vote for them.
  4. It forbids jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts.
  5. It ends the check-off system whereby the employer collects union dues.
  6. It forbids unions from contributing to political campaigns.

The act also required union leaders to take an oath stating that they were not communists. Although many people tried to repeal the act, the Taft-Hartley Act stayed in effect until 1959 when the Landrum-Griffin Act amended some of its features.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1667.html

Landrum-Griffin Act
Landrum-Griffin Act, 1959, passed by the U.S. Congress, officially known as the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. It resulted from hearings of the Senate committee on improper activities in the fields of labor and management, which uncovered evidence of collusion between dishonest employers and union officials, the use of violence by certain segments of labor leadership, and the diversion and misuse of labor union funds by high-ranking officials.

• 1. The act provided for the regulation of internal union affairs, including the regulation and control of union funds.
  2. Former members of the Communist party and former convicts are prevented from holding a union office for a period of five years after resigning their Communist party membership or being released from prison.
  3. Union members are protected against abuses by a bill of rights that includes guarantees of freedom of speech and periodic secret elections.
  4. Secondary boycotting and organizational and recognition picketing (i.e., picketing of companies where a rival union is already recognized) are severely restricted by the act.
  5. In the field of arbitration, an amendment to the Taft-Hartley Labor Act (1947) written into this 1959 act authorized states to process cases that fall outside the province of the National Labor Relations Board.

Organized labor has, in general, opposed the act for strengthening what they consider the antilabor provisions of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act.



Read more: Landrum-Griffin Act — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/business/landrum-griffin-act.html#ixzz2Cd4nHdk7

 

[OldRegular]

But back to discussion of Income please!

 

[Oldtimer]

Closed shops are illegal by federal law.

>Nor is it the task of labor unions, today, to resolve income inequality as suggested by Bill.

>Not when union leaders earn 6 figure salaries while the median income of union workers is just slightly above the median of all workers. Somewhere around $36,000. (Don't have the link handy with the exact figures.)

Why do you apply this standard to labor leaders and not to political leaders????????

Bill, this standard applies to union leaders, political leaders, and even preachers. Especially, TV preachers who cajole dollars from poor people in order to live a lavish lifestyle in the name of God.

Now back to income, as Old Regular requested.

Income inequality is not something to be corrected, adjusted, or whatever the term that may best apply, by any particular group of people. Whether, union leaders, governmental officials, global bankers, or any other group.

Where in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does it say that income redistribution is a function of government? Where in the Bible does it say that income redisbribution is a function of any GROUP of people. To TAKE from the rich and give to the poor?

Deuteronomy 15: KJB
11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.

I Samuel 2: KJB
7 The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.

Matthew 19: KJB
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Matthew 26: KJB
11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

James 2: KJB
5 Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

James 2: KJB
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

The scriptures are filled with references to help the truely needy. Those, through no fault of their own cannot make their way in life without help from others. No where that I can find does it say help the sluggard who is too lazy to work.

From what I've been able to determine, to help others in need, is a choice that a individual Christian makes in their walk of faith. Faith without works (caring for the poor, for example) is dead. TAKING from the pockets of the richer whether by physically stealing their goods or passing laws that do the same is NOT scriptual, IMO. It is not the "works" spoken of in the scriptures.

If the government takes what I have and gives some of it to people who have less income, even those who choose not to work, that is not giving willingly from my heart. Jesus asked the rich man to sell his good and give. Jesus didn't demand or take. He asked.

OldRegular wrote:

I don't like the income inequality either but it is not the task of the Federal government to redistribute it. In fact I believe that government policies have contributed to the income inequality.

Bill wrote:

When the top 10% owns 90% of everything at least half of everyone else will own nothing+be in debt. Recently read that less than 35% of the adults in the US could quickly get their hands on $500 cash.
---------

It's very simple. If the people who depend on hourly wages to pay the routine bills pay up to 35% BUT the people who DON'T KNOW HOW to spend as little as 20% of their annual capital gains and they can pass their excess funds on to the next generaation THEN sooner or later the top 10% will own EVERYTHING worth owning. Then what happens?

So?

What do the scriptures tell us that we, as members of the body of Christ should do about it? Lawfully or unlawfully TAKE it from those who have it?

The scriptures tell us to stay out of debt. Where in the scriptures does it say there shouldn't be a percentage of people without access to ready cash equal to or greater than a specifc amount?

God has said there will always be poor among us. Are some trying to use the government and/or others to become some type of god to counter His words?

BTW, what's "EVERYTHING worth owning"? What did our Lord and Saviour own?

In closing.........

By today's society standards, we are poor. By those standards we live well below the poverty level. By some standards someone should have the power to take from others and give to us. Why? I didn't earn it.

Instead:

I'm blessed to have a roof over our heads. I'm blessed that we can still buy WalMart jeans and flea market shirts. I'm blessed there's food in the pantry for our supper tonight. I'm blessed that I could give a good portion of this past Saturday to help others in need. I'm also blessed, beyond measure, to be able to spend time in the house of our Lord, yesterday.

Therefore, I don't want or "need" anybody TAKING anything from anyone else and giving it to me. Instead, I'm thankful for all the blessing that we have today, and for the greatest blessing, to come, when our Lord calls me home.

 

[OldRegular]

Oldtimer,

The point is that people who work for a wage/salary may pay tax at twice the rate of those whose income is from investments. Even those who make a modest earned income may pay a tax rate that is equivalent to that of millionaires/billionaires! That is income redistribution in reverse and is blatantly unfair.