EPTThe economics of the King - Page 3
| Blogs > darmousseh |
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
| ||
|
Zim23
United States1681 Posts
On July 19 2011 13:15 Froadac wrote: Read http://factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/ They are paying proportionately more now than they did when clinton was around. There is a prevailing belief that most of the top 1% made their money by crushing the lives and dreams of the "little guy," which is why you'll find very little sympathy from the poor/middle class for the ultra rich who, they believe, got their wealth off of their backs. Unfortunately a lot of times this prevailing belief is actually true. | ||
|
n.DieJokes
United States3443 Posts
On July 19 2011 13:15 Froadac wrote: Read http://factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/ They are paying proportionately more now than they did when clinton was around. I did read it, they are paying more now proportionally because they are making more now that ever before. Is that not what your article says? Also the last line of your article confuses me, they say the major reason for the increase is because more people creep into the higher income bracket but all their charts say what the top 1% contribute unless the highest income bracket includes less than 1%? But regardless, your stats are not what I'm talking about. I want to increase the percent income taxed on the rich. Your article says the rich are now more rich and thus make up a greater percentage of tax (or phrased another way the top one percent have become so much richer that their reduced rates are pumping out more income proportionality) | ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
I understand the argument, that it's immoral for people to be super rich and make those who can't afford it pay, but in another sense I think it's immoral to say "hey, you're the minority, you deal with it" | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On July 19 2011 13:56 Froadac wrote: Pretty much. I understand your point. I understand the argument, that it's immoral for people to be super rich and make those who can't afford it pay, but in another sense I think it's immoral to say "hey, you're the minority, you deal with it" Well if it such a problem they could give up the wealth and join the majority. I am fairly certain they don't mind being that particular minority. As an aside, I am all for spending cuts with tax increases as long as they are proportional. Screwing the little guy over is not going to help. | ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
| ||
|
Tuneful
United States327 Posts
| ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
as for troops, you tell the starving peasants that people in xyz country are to blame and you should go kill them hey it worked for germany in 1930s | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
| ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On July 19 2011 10:05 Milkis wrote: Except in reality, the problem comes directly from the fact that the "king has multiple personality disorder" ~_~ methinks you need to understand how economics are applied in a democratic system some more before trying to nail down where the problem came from. Lol, i think the democratic system is the problem. The other reason I used an analogy instead of directly talking about the topic is because the topic itself is cluttered with a political mess. I really don't care what the political atmosphere is like, the outcome is always the same. I guess it depends on your view of economics, but economics can and does exist in hypothetical scenarios (such as in online video games and in computers at the federal reserve) and that we can learn and make decisions using these models. If there is something that affects possible solutions, then we should identify and solve those as separate issues. For example, I'm asking about how to solve the budget/debt problem. How big our military is is a completely different issue. It may be the case that cutting military is the solution, but it may also not be. This is not what I'm asking, I am questioning the very financial system itself. Sure a great king will never go over his debt limit, but why does this even exist in the first place? Too many economists and politicians focus on the way things are rather than the way they ought to be. I might be called an idealist, but idealism is the foundation of all modern social thought. Of course real solutions must take into consideration the current environment, but that shouldn't disrupt the process of deciding a solution. In chess, the fastest way to determine the best move is to picture the ideal location for all of your pieces and work backwards and find viable means to get to that position. Only new, inexperienced players play 1 move at a time. Let's find an ideal solution and talk about the means to get there. So, to discuss the issue of economics in a democratic system, you believe that it is the fault of the congress for spending too much as a result of compromise politics? If so, what is your solution? Should we adopt legislation like the ones the republicans are proposing (all budgets must be balanced) or one like the democrats (remove the debt ceiling) or something else? If you want to discuss actual current US economics, that is fine, but that is boring because the result is always the same. Nothing happens. Governments grow bigger and bigger and we are getting deeper and deeper into debt. We have bandaid solutions such as lowering the interest rates or bailing out large corporations, but those are temporary and rarely work exactly as planned. I know all of the theory behind the madness, but the theory doesn't match the results. Economists love to blame investors, financial institutions, consumers, and governments for recessions and inflations [Inflations are time periods where prices are going up, but that real wealth is not increasing at the same rate], but are they really to blame? Is our current system really sustainable? | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
He says, "I refuse to borrow any more money from the bank. To ensure that I can give more money to the people in the future, everyone has to know that I am not irresponsible. Therefore, I will balance the budget." He continues, "As usual, this vote will have to pass in the Senate and the House of Oliphaunts. I will submit the bill forthwith, that it might pass in a timely fashion." The Senators are divided into 2 camps, the Freedom Party and the Liberty Party. "Wait," says the Liberty Party leader, "We can't just go doing this, the nominal shock to the economy will be large, especially given the current setup of royal outlays. I demand that we increase the amount that the king is allowed to borrow, and that he borrow that money and light it on fire immediately." "That's preposterous!" Cries the Freedom Party leader, who generally agrees with the king. "you'll never have a vote from ANY of Freedomers for such a preposterous act. Instead, I recommend the king do a mighty jig, have sexual relations with many concubines, and cut funding to schools, weapons, and healthcare immediately while taxing the shit out of our merchants and poor." Either group needs a 2/3rds majority to pass their vote, and each group controls half the vote. After months and months of debating, the deadline comes, and each side, the Freedomers and the Libertites, claim that they will NOT bow to the other side's demands. Instead, they raise the debt ceiling JUST A LITTLE so they can continue the discussion shortly. As a result, all the Libertite and Freedomer politicians look like they're drunk crazy buffoons who have no idea what's going on. That's not to worry, though, since that's representative of the country's voting populace. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On July 20 2011 06:03 Blazinghand wrote: Here's what the king does: He says, "I refuse to borrow any more money from the bank. To ensure that I can give more money to the people in the future, everyone has to know that I am not irresponsible. Therefore, I will balance the budget." He continues, "As usual, this vote will have to pass in the Senate and the House of Oliphaunts. I will submit the bill forthwith, that it might pass in a timely fashion." The Senators are divided into 2 camps, the Freedom Party and the Liberty Party. "Wait," says the Liberty Party leader, "We can't just go doing this, the nominal shock to the economy will be large, especially given the current setup of royal outlays. I demand that we increase the amount that the king is allowed to borrow, and that he borrow that money and light it on fire immediately." "That's preposterous!" Cries the Freedom Party leader, who generally agrees with the king. "you'll never have a vote from ANY of Freedomers for such a preposterous act. Instead, I recommend the king do a mighty jig, have sexual relations with many concubines, and cut funding to schools, weapons, and healthcare immediately while taxing the shit out of our merchants and poor." Either group needs a 2/3rds majority to pass their vote, and each group controls half the vote. After months and months of debating, the deadline comes, and each side, the Freedomers and the Libertites, claim that they will NOT bow to the other side's demands. Instead, they raise the debt ceiling JUST A LITTLE so they can continue the discussion shortly. As a result, all the Libertite and Freedomer politicians look like they're drunk crazy buffoons who have no idea what's going on. That's not to worry, though, since that's representative of the country's voting populace. hahahahahahahahahahha. So true. I have no doubt that this is what will ensue. They will delay it until december is my guess. | ||
| ||
