|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 26 2013 11:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:52 Wegandi wrote:On May 26 2013 10:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Etc. etc. etc. Gee, I wonder how much Dole benefited monetarily from having the US Government colonize Hawai'i, Guatemala, and a host of other South American countries. Something tells me they gained a bit more than whatever they payed in taxes... Is this 1896? I chuckled, but my point was that benefits do not cease to be immediately after the fact. If we were to follow property rights, then we need to add up all the benefits Dole has had from those properties since they were stolen from the rightful owners of title. It is just but one example in a long string of them. Just look at companies like Shell today to see modern examples. I find it unsettling how so-called defenders of the 'market' throw away property rights when it doesn't suit their narrow agenda. You're not a defender of the market, but of industrial interests. You give a bad name to all those who do defend property rights, imho. (A value-free moral perspective) What in the hell is wrong with you. The dole company didn't steal anything. The guy who started the dole companies pineapple operations in hawaii (ironically where it gets the dole name) got the land when it was an independent republic before it ever became an american territory. The guy was the cousin of the coup leader and that is why he went to hawaii. the annexation of the islands were of a strategic base to control all of the pacific. I'm pretty sure hawaii is pretty happy with all that happened with the ungodly amount of tourism dollars the locals have gotten. Your problem with them exploiting 3rd world countries is a problem with free trade. Your complaining about what corporations do is nothing more then you complaining about a dog chasing cars. just because they don't know what they're going to do when they catch one doesn't mean it makes any less sense for them to chase it. Liberals complaining about "corporate welfare" are just hypocrites. They want government spending but they only want it to go to things that don't grow the economy.
First off, I'm libertarian, not a liberal, and secondly, that's like saying the guy paying a murderer didn't murder anyone...Well, yes they did. If the President sends troops off to war he is responsible for all the deaths and destruction. Now, as someone living in Hawai'i let me tell you that Hawai'ians are not at all happy about what happened to them and their Kingdom. I can also tell you know nothing about Hawai'i because it was never an 'independent Republic'. Hawai'i was a Monarchy, and then a colony of the US until Statehood in 1959, but I'd argue Hawai'i is still at least occupied territory.
Now, don't take it from me, take it from the most decorated Marine in the history of the US, General Smedley Butler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hawaii-petition/
I bet those boys on the USS Boston were proud of themselves.
Shortly into his presidency, Cleveland appointed James Blount as a special investigator to investigate the events in the Hawaiian Islands. Blount found that Minister Stevens had acted improperly and ordered that the American flag be lowered from Hawaiian government buildings. He also ordered that Queen Lili'uokalani be restored to power, but Sanford Dole, the president of the Provisional Government of Hawaii, refused to turn over power. Dole successfully argued that the United States had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Hawaii. The Provisional Government then proclaimed Hawaii a republic in 1894, and soon the Republic of Hawaii was officially recognized by the United States.
The overthrow of Lili'uokalani and imposition of the Republic of Hawaii was contrary to the will of the native Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians staged mass protest rallies and formed two gender-designated groups to protest the overthrow and prevent annexation. One was the Hui Hawaii Aloha Aina, loosely translated as the Hawaiian Patriotic League, and the other was its female counterpart, the Hui Hawaii Aloha Aina o Na Wahine. On January 5, 1895, the protests took the form of an armed attempt to derail the annexation but the armed revolt was suppressed by forces of the Republic. The leaders of the revolt were imprisoned along with Queen Lili'uokalani who was jailed for failing to put down the revolt
I guess the mentality is if someone doesn't want to hand over their land, or sell it to you, that you have some authority to take it from them. That's as far away from a market-economy and property rights as you can get. It is no different when industrial interests do it than when political interests do it. I oppose all forms of appropriations of property.
|
On May 26 2013 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
I was making a post when I realized that I was in the wrong footing when complaining about class warfare. Me complaining about democrats using it is just hard grapes for it being an effective tool for people who want to advance socialism and capitalism not having a counterpart to advance capitalism.
This is probably going to be the one time I admit defeat you should enjoy it.
The Democrats are pro-capitalism though. There's one socialist Senator and that's about it as far as socialism in America goes.
|
The dole involved in the dole company was the cousin of the revolutionary leader. It was an independent republic for the years inbetween the 1893 coup of the monarcy and the 1898 annexation into the united states. There was a period where the US president did not want to annex the republic and so it did exist in some form an independent state. Politics(if not us then another nation will snap them up soon) is responsible for the later annexation. Whatever influences it had it still has the same footing as texas and California.
A president is politically and legally responsible for the people who die in war but he is in no way personally responsible for their deaths.
Let me break this down for you, Opening new markets is good for a market economy, thus annexing hawaii and making it a new market (or rather using hawaii to open new markets) is right next to a market-economy. Property rights doesn't apply before there is any appropriated property to apply rights to. There was no law that prevents or prevented nations from exhibiting imperialism, in fact it is encouraged by the market-economy and to protect the property rights of your citizens, thus is texas, florida, much of the ohio territories, california, and then hawaii.
The taking of "industrial interests" is a political interest, they are not separate things but a causation for another. You're last sentence is nothing more then abhorrent idealism at its worst. You must have reason to oppose something that doesn't feed into a blind hope to be in a world that doesn't exist.
On May 26 2013 11:38 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:14 Sermokala wrote:
I was making a post when I realized that I was in the wrong footing when complaining about class warfare. Me complaining about democrats using it is just hard grapes for it being an effective tool for people who want to advance socialism and capitalism not having a counterpart to advance capitalism.
This is probably going to be the one time I admit defeat you should enjoy it. The Democrats are pro-capitalism though. There's one socialist Senator and that's about it as far as socialism in America goes.
You don't have to be openly socialist to want to advance socialism. Socialism and capitalism are just names to define the 2 different sides in the state's involvement in the economy debate in US politics.
|
On May 26 2013 11:26 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 11:04 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 10:52 Wegandi wrote:On May 26 2013 10:36 DeepElemBlues wrote:Etc. etc. etc. Gee, I wonder how much Dole benefited monetarily from having the US Government colonize Hawai'i, Guatemala, and a host of other South American countries. Something tells me they gained a bit more than whatever they payed in taxes... Is this 1896? I chuckled, but my point was that benefits do not cease to be immediately after the fact. If we were to follow property rights, then we need to add up all the benefits Dole has had from those properties since they were stolen from the rightful owners of title. It is just but one example in a long string of them. Just look at companies like Shell today to see modern examples. I find it unsettling how so-called defenders of the 'market' throw away property rights when it doesn't suit their narrow agenda. You're not a defender of the market, but of industrial interests. You give a bad name to all those who do defend property rights, imho. (A value-free moral perspective) What in the hell is wrong with you. The dole company didn't steal anything. The guy who started the dole companies pineapple operations in hawaii (ironically where it gets the dole name) got the land when it was an independent republic before it ever became an american territory. The guy was the cousin of the coup leader and that is why he went to hawaii. the annexation of the islands were of a strategic base to control all of the pacific. I'm pretty sure hawaii is pretty happy with all that happened with the ungodly amount of tourism dollars the locals have gotten. Your problem with them exploiting 3rd world countries is a problem with free trade. Your complaining about what corporations do is nothing more then you complaining about a dog chasing cars. just because they don't know what they're going to do when they catch one doesn't mean it makes any less sense for them to chase it. Liberals complaining about "corporate welfare" are just hypocrites. They want government spending but they only want it to go to things that don't grow the economy. First off, I'm libertarian, not a liberal, and secondly, that's like saying the guy paying a murderer didn't murder anyone...Well, yes they did. If the President sends troops off to war he is responsible for all the deaths and destruction. Now, as someone living in Hawai'i let me tell you that Hawai'ians are not at all happy about what happened to them and their Kingdom. I can also tell you know nothing about Hawai'i because it was never an 'independent Republic'. Hawai'i was a Monarchy, and then a colony of the US until Statehood in 1959, but I'd argue Hawai'i is still at least occupied territory. Now, don't take it from me, take it from the most decorated Marine in the history of the US, General Smedley Butler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_RacketShow nested quote +I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/hawaii-petition/I bet those boys on the USS Boston were proud of themselves. Show nested quote +Shortly into his presidency, Cleveland appointed James Blount as a special investigator to investigate the events in the Hawaiian Islands. Blount found that Minister Stevens had acted improperly and ordered that the American flag be lowered from Hawaiian government buildings. He also ordered that Queen Lili'uokalani be restored to power, but Sanford Dole, the president of the Provisional Government of Hawaii, refused to turn over power. Dole successfully argued that the United States had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of Hawaii. The Provisional Government then proclaimed Hawaii a republic in 1894, and soon the Republic of Hawaii was officially recognized by the United States.
The overthrow of Lili'uokalani and imposition of the Republic of Hawaii was contrary to the will of the native Hawaiians. Native Hawaiians staged mass protest rallies and formed two gender-designated groups to protest the overthrow and prevent annexation. One was the Hui Hawaii Aloha Aina, loosely translated as the Hawaiian Patriotic League, and the other was its female counterpart, the Hui Hawaii Aloha Aina o Na Wahine. On January 5, 1895, the protests took the form of an armed attempt to derail the annexation but the armed revolt was suppressed by forces of the Republic. The leaders of the revolt were imprisoned along with Queen Lili'uokalani who was jailed for failing to put down the revolt I guess the mentality is if someone doesn't want to hand over their land, or sell it to you, that you have some authority to take it from them. That's as far away from a market-economy and property rights as you can get. It is no different when industrial interests do it than when political interests do it. I oppose all forms of appropriations of property.
Why should I care about Smedley Butler's military decorations when he's spouting half-baked half-the-story-at-best political rhetoric.
General Huerta was a proto-fascist in bed with the Imperial German government in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Germany's intent was to produce a Mexican government that would serve up Mexico and her people as distracting cannon fodder if the USA ever went to war with Germany. Tampico was not about American oil interests per se, it was about Huerta trying to take over the Mexican oil industry for his own benefit and the United States' very anti-Huerta foreign policy.
Cuba was made so safe for the "National City Bank boys" that the Cuban dollar traded on par with the US dollar before Castro and Cubans - in the cities at least - lived better than they ever had before or since. Cuba was the most developed and prosperous country in the Western hemisphere other than the United States and Canada from the expulsion of the Spanish to 1959.
The US intervened in Nicaragua to protect American citizens and their property and yes business interests too, since never-ending civil war is usually bad for business. I'm not going to sit here and act like General Butler has jack shit to say about the propriety and efficacy of the US government guaranteeing US bank loans to Central American governments. There is a clear and marked difference in the prosperity of those countries when you look at their status post-independence from Spain, during US involvement, and after we stopped overseeing them. Generally speaking, the only half-decent time to be alive in those countries since Columbus showed up was when "Dollar Diplomacy" was king and American gunboats prowled the coasts. I'm not going to apologize for subverting their national right to endless domestic political machinations and violence over which faction would continue the tradition of the former Spanish rulers.
The Dominican Republic was occupied by the US to prevent European powers from occupying it and to end the caudillos endlessly jockeying and backstabbing and fighting for power. The US assumed responsibility for the Republic's massive debt that was crushing the country and inviting European invasion and looting of the country. The US gave the Dominicans every opportunity for self-rule and the caudillos continued to shit things up with coup plots and general instability, so we went in in 1916. Smedley Butler doesn't mention that the United States spent a load of money to suppress the exploitative caudillos and bring the country from the eighteenth century to the twentieth and from political fragmentation to civil unity. Again, as in so many other "Banana Republics," the best thing that ever happened to the DR since 1492 was the American intervention.
Those awful banana companies in Honduras created self-sufficient communities that attracted laborers from all over Central America and the Caribbean because they were far better places to work and live than the shitholes they came from. The US intervened because corrupt Honduran governments, which kept overthrowing each other left and right, kept trying to suck the lifeblood out of these areas for their own benefit. The Honduran political elite was happy to use racism against West African laborers and Afro-Caribbeans to whip up populist resentment against the banana companies and their employees.
Standard Oil did gangbusters selling kerosene as lamp oil to China because they were able to sell it cheaply enough that it was a great benefit to the average Chinese peasant or urban proletarian so huge amounts could be sold. This naturally annoyed the Chinese elite so they ginned up the idea that China was being exploited and the Marines came in to ensure that Americans didn't get screwed because Chinese fat cats weren't getting their cut. Oh, the exploitation, General Butler!
I'm not sure what the US government had to do with the coup in Hawaii, since President Cleveland commissioned a report that concluded that the Queen had been illegally removed and consequently the Cleveland administration demanded that she be re-instated, which the Provisional government refused. Minister Stevens was essentially hood-winked by the Hawaiian League into inserting Marines into the middle of the situation where he was informed that American lives and property were at risk from faction violence, which doomed the Queen as the preservation of the status quo left the Hawaiian League with the upper hand.
The actions of the Hawaiian League and its executive committee the Committee for Public Safety were certainly underhanded and wrong, but they were not acting on the orders, formal or informal, of the US government. They were acting on their own for their own self-benefit, and presented the US with a fait accompli: it could annex Hawaii, or it could refuse the entreaties of the provisional government and watch some other country, most likely the United Kingdom, do it instead.
In any event the annexation of Hawaii probably prevented it from being invaded and occupied by the Japanese, so if native Hawaiians are pissed about it, my response is, why don't you get the fuck over something that happened over 100 years ago and ended up working out damn well for your islands.
Although I guess if the US hadn't annexed Hawaii, Barack Obama couldn't be president. DAMN YOU SANFORD DOLE.
|
If anything, we need to occupy and annex MORE countries. In the best interests of the countries themselves, of course. Although in this century, we are currently 0-for-2. But there's time to bring that batting average up.
|
On May 26 2013 12:34 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If anything, we need to occupy and annex MORE countries. In the best interests of the countries themselves, of course. Although in this century, we are currently 0-for-2. But there's time to bring that batting average up.
The problem was we didn't annex them silly 
|
On May 26 2013 12:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 12:34 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
If anything, we need to occupy and annex MORE countries. In the best interests of the countries themselves, of course. Although in this century, we are currently 0-for-2. But there's time to bring that batting average up. The problem was we didn't annex them silly
Not yet, my friend. Not yet :D
|
Come on Puerto Rico! I really hope they become a state.
|
On May 26 2013 13:49 aksfjh wrote:
Come on Puerto Rico! I really hope they become a state.
Won't happen. Over 3 million people live in PR and tend to vote left leaning. Now make them a state and they would have more electoral votes than Mississippi... It would be a Democratic dagger in the Republican south.
|
|
|
United States7232 Posts
This is a perfect example of where society needs to dispense with the notion of moral desert and look to the consequences. Those people have already proven themselves willing to commit the most heinous crimes, and we're going to put them in a position where they are starving and are certain to hurt innocent citizens.
|
Somebody should tell Vitter that Lifeline, aka "the free cellphone program" started in 1985 and was expanded to cover wireless phones in 2005. get you shit together Vitter
|
On May 26 2013 15:20 Mindcrime wrote:Somebody should tell Vitter that Lifeline, aka "the free cellphone program" started in 1985 and was expanded to cover wireless phones in 2005. get you shit together Vitter
I don't think Vitter cares. He's complaining about less than 1% of the food stamp program going to the wrong individuals. Over 2 years, and a budget of more than $2 billion, he complains about ~$3.1 million in waste. He's obviously more interested in the moral argument against moochers than one for helping those in need. The guy is a crook.
|
On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare.
I don't think it is semantics that is being used to justify class warfare. The idea is that rich people have more money and can spare more money for the benefit of society as a whole. And I would argue that rich people benefit more from society than poor people do. It is semantic whether how you define "fair share", but this argument is only important if you decide to tax people based on what it their "fair share", in which case semantics is not being used to justify class warfare, instead the argument is being done semantically. It would be easier to say that the term "fair share" has no commonly agreed meaning and hence not use it when arguing about tax rates.
Why is class warfare seen as such a bad thing anyway? I don't fully understand what people mean by the term "class warfare" (except that is often thrown around when something is proposed that rich people don't like), so I don't understand why it is inherently bad.
On May 26 2013 10:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. Oh please. If there is anything less true than "I pay less tax rate than my secretary," it's "there is a class war, and the rich are winning." Apparently the definition of class war is "tax rates" and the rich are "winning" if tax rates on them are not at a confiscatory level.
With the caveat above that I am not certain what is meant by "class war", the sentence "there is a class war, and the rich are winning" can be backed by evidence. The amount the top 1% makes (after tax) has been rising faster (proportionally) than for anyone else.
+ Show Spoiler [Chart] +
Data source
|
On May 26 2013 09:29 DeepElemBlues wrote:
The whole "I pay less tax rate than my secretary" line is a bullshit lie anyway.
You're not going to find many cleaners paying a larger income tax rate than billionaires either. It's 99% bullshit.
As long as you can find some who do, and you definitely can, there's a problem.
|
On May 26 2013 19:07 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. I don't think it is semantics that is being used to justify class warfare. The idea is that rich people have more money and can spare more money for the benefit of society as a whole. And I would argue that rich people benefit more from society than poor people do. It is semantic whether how you define "fair share", but this argument is only important if you decide to tax people based on what it their "fair share", in which case semantics is not being used to justify class warfare, instead the argument is being done semantically. It would be easier to say that the term "fair share" has no commonly agreed meaning and hence not use it when arguing about tax rates. Why is class warfare seen as such a bad thing anyway? I don't fully understand what people mean by the term "class warfare" (except that is often thrown around when something is proposed that rich people don't like), so I don't understand why it is inherently bad. Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 10:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. Oh please. If there is anything less true than "I pay less tax rate than my secretary," it's "there is a class war, and the rich are winning." Apparently the definition of class war is "tax rates" and the rich are "winning" if tax rates on them are not at a confiscatory level. With the caveat above that I am not certain what is meant by "class war", the sentence "there is a class war, and the rich are winning" can be backed by evidence. The amount the top 1% makes (after tax) has been rising faster (proportionally) than for anyone else. + Show Spoiler [Chart] +Data source
How is that class warfare?
An economy is not a zero sum game. Unless there is artificial scarcity which is not an outcome of an undistorted, free market.
I also don't see why we need to punish all the rich and make major changes to policy because conceivably somewhere there might be a janitor paying a higher tax rate than a rich guy. And honestly so what, paying 5% on a million helps a lot more poor people than paying 8% on $25,000. But that doesnt matter because results don't matter, bitching at the rich does.
|
On May 27 2013 00:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:
And honestly so what, paying 5% on a million helps a lot more poor people than paying 8% on $25,000.
paying 5% on 1000000 helps as much as 25 people paying 8% on 25000.
if you were to distribute 1000000 among 25 people you would the same in taxes by giving 25000 to each (leaving you 375000 to do whatever you want with) as you get when giving 1000000 to one of them.
pointless ofc, just showing how the naive example you used goes against the point you are trying to make.
|
On May 27 2013 00:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 19:07 Melliflue wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. I don't think it is semantics that is being used to justify class warfare. The idea is that rich people have more money and can spare more money for the benefit of society as a whole. And I would argue that rich people benefit more from society than poor people do. It is semantic whether how you define "fair share", but this argument is only important if you decide to tax people based on what it their "fair share", in which case semantics is not being used to justify class warfare, instead the argument is being done semantically. It would be easier to say that the term "fair share" has no commonly agreed meaning and hence not use it when arguing about tax rates. Why is class warfare seen as such a bad thing anyway? I don't fully understand what people mean by the term "class warfare" (except that is often thrown around when something is proposed that rich people don't like), so I don't understand why it is inherently bad. On May 26 2013 10:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. Oh please. If there is anything less true than "I pay less tax rate than my secretary," it's "there is a class war, and the rich are winning." Apparently the definition of class war is "tax rates" and the rich are "winning" if tax rates on them are not at a confiscatory level. With the caveat above that I am not certain what is meant by "class war", the sentence "there is a class war, and the rich are winning" can be backed by evidence. The amount the top 1% makes (after tax) has been rising faster (proportionally) than for anyone else. + Show Spoiler [Chart] +Data source How is that class warfare? An economy is not a zero sum game. Unless there is artificial scarcity which is not an outcome of an undistorted, free market. I also don't see why we need to punish all the rich and make major changes to policy because conceivably somewhere there might be a janitor paying a higher tax rate than a rich guy. And honestly so what, paying 5% on a million helps a lot more poor people than paying 8% on $25,000. But that doesnt matter because results don't matter, bitching at the rich does.
That is a bit one-sided. The question remains in your comparison, who can feel the taxation most?
5% of a million is 50.000 $ and what does it matter if the living expenses are about 80.000-100.000 $ for this guy? It cuts his luxury spending, charity spending etc., but it is not really hurting him.
5% of 25.000 is about 1.250 $. If the cost of living for these people are about 15.000 to 20.000 for this guy, he has 3.750 to 8.750 $ for "luxury" spending.
Logic says that having 14 to 33 % extra for luxury spending is a bit more important than having 5 to 6 % extra for luxury. It is also a pretty important concept in economy, that 3.750 $ is a lot easier to use than 920.000 $ which makes the likely impact of an overall tax-reduction far more likely to go back to the economy instead of boosting savings for the low wages than the high wages.
Looking at the specific tax paid completely neglects these concepts and therefore makes for a poor comparison. Even percentual tax is scewed, but less so than specific amounts.
|
On May 27 2013 00:17 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2013 19:07 Melliflue wrote:On May 26 2013 09:40 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 09:19 KwarK wrote:On May 26 2013 09:15 Sermokala wrote:On May 26 2013 06:30 Gorsameth wrote:On May 26 2013 06:27 Sermokala wrote:
Don't you see the point of it all? Making an indistry based on understanding the tax code creates a service industry that is non rescrse intensive, scales with the economy, and is entirely capataist ready industry.
Basicaly it employs a shitton of people that would otherwise be unemployed TPAs generaly don't have any skills to apply anywhere else other then tax services. except for you know the bit where a tax code as huge as the US makes billionairs pay less money then there cleaners. They pay a much lower rate yes but you'd have to be a class warfare enthusiast to say that billionaires pay less money then their cleaners in taxes. The reason why saying that rich people "need to pay their far share" is such a bad joke is that rich people already pay well more then their equal share in taxes compared to the middle and lower class. People define their share differently, some by what they have as a % and others by what they can spare. Semantics shouldn't Justify class warefare. I don't think it is semantics that is being used to justify class warfare. The idea is that rich people have more money and can spare more money for the benefit of society as a whole. And I would argue that rich people benefit more from society than poor people do. It is semantic whether how you define "fair share", but this argument is only important if you decide to tax people based on what it their "fair share", in which case semantics is not being used to justify class warfare, instead the argument is being done semantically. It would be easier to say that the term "fair share" has no commonly agreed meaning and hence not use it when arguing about tax rates. Why is class warfare seen as such a bad thing anyway? I don't fully understand what people mean by the term "class warfare" (except that is often thrown around when something is proposed that rich people don't like), so I don't understand why it is inherently bad. On May 26 2013 10:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:It seems like a better alternative than class warfare on for the rich, who are taken seriously when they advocate total surrender to their demands so we have a class rout instead of a class war. That was my point: there is a class war, and the rich are winning. Oh please. If there is anything less true than "I pay less tax rate than my secretary," it's "there is a class war, and the rich are winning." Apparently the definition of class war is "tax rates" and the rich are "winning" if tax rates on them are not at a confiscatory level. With the caveat above that I am not certain what is meant by "class war", the sentence "there is a class war, and the rich are winning" can be backed by evidence. The amount the top 1% makes (after tax) has been rising faster (proportionally) than for anyone else. + Show Spoiler [Chart] +Data source How is that class warfare?
As I said, I'm not entirely sure what is meant by "class warfare". I welcome a definition. I would say though that the top 1% increasing how much of the US wealth they have (as a % of the total) is class warfare from the rich upon the poor.
An economy is not a zero sum game. Unless there is artificial scarcity which is not an outcome of an undistorted, free market.
The global economy is a zero-sum game; one person's income is another person's expenditure. The US economy is not a zero-sum game, it is a (exports-imports)-sum game, and since the US has a trade deficit the US economy is a negative-sum game (in March 2013 the US economy was a -$38.8 Billion sum game, source).
I also don't see why we need to punish all the rich and make major changes to policy because conceivably somewhere there might be a janitor paying a higher tax rate than a rich guy. And honestly so what, paying 5% on a million helps a lot more poor people than paying 8% on $25,000. But that doesnt matter because results don't matter,
It is not punishing the rich. They are not being punished. Using the word "punish" here is disingenuous, an attempt to attach the negative emotional aspect of "punish" to the act of taxing rich people a higher % than poorer people. Punishing rich people would be taxing them so much that they end up poorer than the poor people, and that definitely isn't happening. So please don't use the word "punish" unless you fully explain who is punishing who, the form of punishment, and for what reason.
If you think results are all that matter then making rich people pay more tax would benefit the poor even more, so if results all that matter then the tax rate on the rich should be higher 
Richer people can pay a larger %. That 5% from a person earning 25K means more to that person and their quality of life than 5% from a person earning >= 1 million.
bitching at the rich does.
Because pointing out that the rich are taking an increasingly larger % of wealth is "bitching at the rich"? I hope I wasn't "bitching" about anything. I was trying to have a civilised conversation.
|
Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer is stepping up her pressure on the GOP-led legislature to expand Medicaid by declaring a moratorium on legislating until they give in.
Brewer vetoed five unrelated bills on Thursday, according to the Arizona Republic, and threatened to keep blocking legislation until Republicans expand Medicaid to cover thousands of Arizonans, which Obamacare permits at minimal cost to the state.
"I warned that I would not sign additional measures into law until we see resolution of the two most pressing issues facing us: adoption of a fiscal 2014 state budget and plan for Medicaid," Brewer wrote in a statement explaining her decision. "It is disappointing I must demonstrate the moratorium was not an idle threat."
Republicans in state legislatures are facing significant pressure from their right flank to reject the expansion, a move that conservative activists see as their last line of defense against Obamacare. Arizona state House Republicans who support Brewer's Medicaid expansion plan are reporting growing threats of retribution, according to the Republic.
Numerous Republican governors in red states have rejected the expansion. Others, mostly in blue or swing states, have accepted it, facing pressure from not only constituents but hospitals and industry groups who want the infusion of federal health care money into the states.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](http://inequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/increase-in-after-tax-income-by-income-group.png?9d4203)
