|
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/25589.htmlNearly
"About 46.6 Million Filers Were "Nonpayers" Due to Exemptions, Deductions, Credits
Washington, DC, December 4, 2009 -- Nearly one-third of the 143 million federal income tax returns filed in 2007 resulted in no tax payment, according to a Tax Foundation analysis of IRS data. That means the tax filers got back every dollar that had been withheld from their paychecks, and often more. Roughly 46.6 million tax returns, or 32.6 percent, are filed by such "nonpayers," people whose exemptions, deductions and credits wiped out any federal income tax due.
"In about half the cases, additional money was 'refunded' to these tax filers -- meaning they received a check from the government -- similar to welfare spending programs," said Tax Foundation President Scott Hodge, who authored Tax Foundation Fiscal Fact No. 202, "Surge of 'Nonpayers' Will Be Part of Bush Tax Legacy." The Fiscal Fact is available online at http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/25586.html.
The percentage of "nonpayers" in 2007 is the second-highest, slightly lower than the all-time highest in 2006, when 33 percent of tax filers paid nothing. A record has been set every year since 2002 (30.1 percent), as tax cuts throughout the Bush years -- especially the refundable child tax credit -- pushed low- to middle-income people off the federal income tax rolls.
"The number of 'nonpayers' can be expected to soar due to programs such as President Obama's 'Making Work Pay' tax credit," Hodge said. "We now have an enormous class of Americans who are disconnected from the cost of government and have no skin in the game, and that is not good for democracy."
The percentage of nonpayers was fairly low in the 1960s and again in the early 1980s. The number of federal income tax returns filed with zero or negative income tax liability each year from 1950-2007 is available online at http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/25587.html."
The Tax Foundation is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that has monitored fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937.
How much longer are we going to be able to sustain this if progressively less and less people are paying taxes?
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government
|
Come to Croatia, here you HAVE to pay taxes or else they just take it from you...one way or another you'll pay.
|
Can someone explain the difference between income tax and payroll tax? I quickly looked at the wiki for payroll tax and it just sounds the same as income tax to me.
|
On December 17 2009 05:55 IceCube wrote:
Come to Croatia, here you HAVE to pay taxes or else they just take it from you...one way or another you'll pay.
I should have quoted this too as it was at the top of the article.
"About 46.6 Million Filers Were "Nonpayers" Due to Exemptions, Deductions, Credits"
as in they basically didn't qualify to pay taxes probably because they didn't earn enough. Probably also meaning their contribution to the payroll tax section of the pie was also small.
|
On December 17 2009 06:00 Mastermind wrote:
Can someone explain the difference between income tax and payroll tax? I quickly looked at the wiki for payroll tax and it just sounds the same as income tax to me.
I believe payroll tax is what is paid by the employer based on its payroll. Then income tax is what the employee pays (although this is withold from your paycheck by the company).
|
I'm not too sure if its the same in the US, but here in canada for payroll taxes we pay for CPP (canadian pension plan) and EI (employment insurance or unemployment insurance depending on how you look at it). when CPP and EI are deducted from your paychq your employer must remit your CPP and EI taken from your paychq as well as the employers portion of CPP and EI. CPP for the employer is equal to your amount and EI is 1.4 times your amount.
Income tax on the other is the taxes you owe for earning income.
Hope that helps clear it up.
|
@motbob's chart
OP's article takes payroll taxes into account, that is, one-third of filers "got back every dollar that had been withheld from their paychecks," so they are classified as " 'nonpayers,' people whose exemptions, deductions and credits wiped out any federal income tax due."
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On December 17 2009 06:22 datscilly wrote:
@motbob's chart
OP's article takes payroll taxes into account, that is, one-third of filers "got back every dollar that had been withheld from their paychecks," so they are classified as " 'nonpayers,' people whose exemptions, deductions and credits wiped out any federal income tax due."
That's different than Medicare and Social Security, which everyone pays and doesn't get back until they retire.
|
I made $14k USD two tax seasons ago, (roughly two years ago) and I had to pay taxes to "the man".
They explained it to me in the following way: since I didn't have any dependents and was a full time student I was making "too much money". I wanted to rip someone's head off too much money is $14K a year? I was working my ass off trying to save up money. I had a full time job (which I often worked overtime in) and on top of that I was a full time student and so the government deemed it that I was too wealthy for my own good.
Maybe now they will start taxing the rich a higher % and not depend on the middle class as much. 
|
BuGzIToOnI, it's not that you make too much, it's that you aren't getting much deducted per pay check, so at the end of the year, you didn't pay the amount you should have, based on the fact that you have no dependents. Being a student actually gives you a tax credit usually because they factor in cost of attendance (Your school should have given you a tax form with info about tuition and what not) I made about 20k last year and was a part time student, Federal owed me money and I owed State like $50. If you want the government to take out more per check, which allows you to usually get a refund at tax time, then you just change the info on your W4 so it says you have 1 or 0 dependency status. Also as a student, always make sure you never itemize deductions, just use the default credit. Basically if you made 14k, they should have only been able to tax at most half of that. Which means they are taking the same percent they give to everybody off of 7k, if what you paid them throughout the year does not = the % of 7k then you owe them more, if you paid more than the % of 7k then they refund you the overage.
|
working for my state university cafeteria i pay like ~4% taxes so i dont really even mind. only thing i pay is state tax no federal/social security/whatever
|
Bear in mind that about 1/3 of people make less than 25k a year, so it really doesn't make much sense for those people to be paying taxes.
|
I work fulltime and i am a fulltime college student. government rapes 1/3 of my paycheck
|
On December 17 2009 06:35 BuGzlToOnl wrote:Maybe now they will start taxing the rich a higher % and not depend on the middle class as much.
Seriously.... how the fuck do they expect dependent students who go to college on their own, technically as a dependant, and work on their own.. how do they expect these kids to buy cars and continue in the real world while they rape the chunk of income they NEED to save, leaving them only with what they can get by with.
That is why I'm gonna figure out how to get rich before I graduate college. Wish me glhf, tyty
|
yea so? The gov't also gave out free stimulus money to like 100 million people (some got 300$ others got like 700$)
|
Also, I make like 300-400$ every 2weeks and the government takes at least 60$ on each check. Then people like me turn around and go to social services to get EBT cards and what not. Then the gov't gives it back in April. This system is so fucking retarded it's unbelievable.
|
Not to mention at the time of the stimulus people with a higher income got more money than those with a lower income lol.
|
United States43808 Posts
In classical Athens public works were paid for out of the pockets of the rich and there were no direct taxes on the people. The assumption was that if you were rich you could afford these things and if you refused to pay up you were admitting among your peers that you couldn't afford it which was obviously embarassing. Although there was a legal defence, if you were asked to contribute by buying a ship and you felt there was someone richer than you who hadn't been asked you could take him to court and if you proved he was richer then it became his tax burden and not yours.
Bear in mind this was in a direct democracy, the mob got together and decided what they wanted to do and how much they wanted to spend. They then demanded other people pay for it.
To put it another way, it could be worse.
|
On December 17 2009 06:35 BuGzlToOnl wrote:Maybe now they will start taxing the rich a higher % and not depend on the middle class as much.
Not as long as the rich get to write the tax code
|
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are?
I've been searching for a blog someone made about their dad only making about $100k a year and then bitching about how Obama's proposed tax rate for the upper class meant his family was going to make a lot less. Can't find it thou, but that truly made me laugh.
|
It's especially funny because Adam Smith himself argued that rich people should pay a higher percentage in taxes
|
A bad system perpetuates itself by forcing the wrong framework on a discussion.
Instead of worrying about what is actually done with taxes paid, people argue that they shouldn't have to pay taxes in the first place (or that the taxes should be lower). Of course, there won't ever be a time where you legally won't have to pay taxes, but here we go, arguing over it anyway.
But maybe instead, just once, we could recognize the real issues we have in the US. What would we accomplish if our tax money was used for reasonable goals, rather than insane ones like our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's what we should be upset over: the misuse of taxes, not the fact they're being taken in the first place. It's the same thing as when we discuss health care and note that we spend more money per capita than any country, yet lag far, far behind in results. The system is broken, and you're not helping anyone by arguing that it shouldn't exist in the first place. Instead of actually making it work, we just end up making it more convoluted, keeping the failed entities (insurance companies, presidents, etc) in place.
Yes, I know there's an underlying agenda here - a libertarian 'privatize everything' ideology. But a rational, thoughtful society has no reason to even consider ideas like those, especially not in this era of human history. This is just another instance where the rest of the industrialized world gets to both laugh and cry over our ridiculous behavior.
|
If you guys are hurting now wait until the Bush tax cuts are gone after 2010.
Right now, the marginal tax rates are 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35%.
If lawmakers do nothing, the tax rates would revert to their earlier levels of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%
The Bush legislation also brought a 15% tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. And the rate drops to 0% for filers in the lowest two tax brackets.
Those rates are set to expire at the end of 2010. Under current law, capital gains rates would go back to 20% (10% for some lower-income filers) and qualified dividends would be taxed as ordinary income up to the top rate of 39.6%.
|
The highest earners pay in taxes close to 50% of their income depending on the state (New York sucks) how much more do you really want them to pay lol. Seems silly to penalize success imo.
|
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing.
|
On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are?
No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that?
On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing.
That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control.
The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else.
|
On December 18 2009 01:43 Undisputed- wrote:
The highest earners pay in taxes close to 50% of their income depending on the state (New York sucks) how much more do you really want them to pay lol. Seems silly to penalize success imo.
That's ludicrous. If I was making $10million per year for playing games with paper at an investment bank but only took home $5million, I would certainly not complain. Of course it's more like 43% and only applies to their earned income above $250k, but that's just a technicality right? You're also assuming that people with the "highest income" are the "highest earners". Most people who make over $250k per year do not do so by actively earning a wage, they do so from passive income through investments. This is money they don't work for. And they actually pay less tax on THAT income than they do on the money they have to (arguably) work for.
I'm certainly not against income from investments, but I am against people characterizing those with the most income from said investments as the "most productive" and the "highest earners", because they're simply not. The highest "earners" are people like investment bankers who make $10mil per year. Doctors and lawyers generally come in around the $300k mark... pitiful by comparison. And then of course teachers make like $35k... what a great system we have. Isn't raw unadulterated capitalism amazing? 
|
On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else.
Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good.
|
On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good.
So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees?
I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares?
I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble?
|
On December 17 2009 05:55 IceCube wrote:
Come to Croatia, here you HAVE to pay taxes or else they just take it from you...one way or another you'll pay.
Come to Sweden, here you can fuck around with taxes until you get caught. Then you can move to another country
An additional idea is to keep savings accounts in tax paradise places like Cayman islands or wherever
|
On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are?
Yeah it sounds fine and dandy if you're not the one with high income. Say you work your ass off each and every day, have an 8 year university education and managed to get a good job. Should you pay relatively more tax than someone else who didn't bother go down the road of ambitions and instead works at wal-mart?
I think not.
|
On December 17 2009 06:08 bburn wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2009 06:00 Mastermind wrote:
Can someone explain the difference between income tax and payroll tax? I quickly looked at the wiki for payroll tax and it just sounds the same as income tax to me. I believe payroll tax is what is paid by the employer based on its payroll. Then income tax is what the employee pays (although this is withold from your paycheck by the company).
Doesn't matter if they can pay it or not, gov takes what they can from what you have. Doesn't have to be a lot just something.
|
And damn, you got louder going now. Seems to know what he is talking about too so LISTEN TO HIM!!! Louder for pres.
|
On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble?
This
|
IRS has no right to exist in the first place, so...good.
|
On December 17 2009 05:53 motbob wrote:payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government
Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%.
|
Nobody has brought this up yet, but I think a large part of the dispute between people comes from the fact that there are large disparities across state lines. Some people have mocked that people can't survive on $100k income, but in California, if you're supporting 2 kids and your spouse isn't working, $100k barely pays the bills. Whereas if you move to the midwest, you could easily get by on $100k. In this respect, the IRS fails in that it indiscriminately taxes people based on what they earn, not by what they need to get by. The differences across state lines have been particularly exacerbated the last few decades as most people are moving en masse to urban coastal areas. The old antiquated, slow-to-change system is just lumbering on without recognizing the need to delegate more autonomy to state governments.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 18 2009 15:41 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2009 05:53 motbob wrote:payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%.
Huh? I thought companies were forced to withhold the tax money from the employee's paycheck.
|
On December 17 2009 10:09 KwarK wrote:
Although there was a legal defence, if you were asked to contribute by buying a ship and you felt there was someone richer than you who hadn't been asked you could take him to court and if you proved he was richer then it became his tax burden and not yours.
You could never really prove that the other guy was richer than you. An antidosis was a really messy situation (and no record exists of one being performed) so the citizen being challenged would just accept the responsibility of the liturgy. It was more or less just a tool to be used in court, much like a proclesis of basanos (see Demosthenes 21 for a good example).
|
On December 18 2009 15:58 Mystlord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 15:41 gchan wrote:On December 17 2009 05:53 motbob wrote:payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%. Huh? I thought companies were forced to withhold the tax money from the employee's paycheck.
There's several components companies are forced to withhold from an employee's paycheck. The two absolute ones are social security (6.2% withheld) and Medicare (1.45% withheld). The other components, which are often variable, are the unemployment taxes (varies by state) and the normal individual income tax withheld. This latter one is calculated based on a predetermined formula that considers your marital status and number of dependents (which is why you're forced to fill out this info when you first sign up for a job). A lot of times, this formula ends up withholding too much for people, so they get a refund when they file their taxes next year. If it withheld too little, you owe taxes.
What I was referring to in reference to the chart is the 6.2% SS tax and 1.45% Medicare tax which is what the government determines as "payroll taxes." This category of taxes is actually half paid by the company and half paid by the individual. So when companies withhold the 6.2%, they have to eventually pay 12.4% to the government for the social security portion of their payrolls. Same with Medicare (3.9%). That's why I say individuals only pay 18% of that 36% shown, and of the 33% people not paying taxes, they are roughly only paying 33% of that 18% pie piece.
|
On December 17 2009 10:02 CharlieMurphy wrote:
yea so? The gov't also gave out free stimulus money to like 100 million people (some got 300$ others got like 700$)
Don't be a libtard, govt money comes from the taxpayers, not out of thin area...generally speaking.
|
So much misunderstanding about Taxes.
For your FIFA taxes (SS and medicare) you pay 6.2% on your first 106,000, but medicare is unlimited 1.45%. This is withheld from your paycheck each month. The business has to match the amount you pay. The company pays state and federal unemployment, along with a tax on earnings. You also have to pay state (if you have it) and federal income tax. The botton 50% of all earners pay less than 5% of all collected taxes (federal). The bottom 50% of earners make up to (about) 36000 dollars a year.
Each state has a different minimum wage, which is the minimum wage an uneducated, unskilled worker earns to meet the bare minimum to survive (cost of living is different from city to city, you earn twice as much working in NY than joebrown, kentucky but rent also cost twice as much).
Now there are also payment schedules, and all that other crap, but I don't work payroll so I don't give a shit. If you want I'll even cover exemptions, and you can even choose not to have taxes withheld from your pay check if you want.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 18 2009 16:15 gchan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 15:58 Mystlord wrote:On December 18 2009 15:41 gchan wrote:On December 17 2009 05:53 motbob wrote:payroll taxes make up a LOT of revenue for the U.S. government Half the payroll taxes is paid for by the company. So in effect, the only taxes that the 33% pay are their half of the payroll which is some 33% or less of the remaining 18%. Huh? I thought companies were forced to withhold the tax money from the employee's paycheck. There's several components companies are forced to withhold from an employee's paycheck. The two absolute ones are social security (6.2% withheld) and Medicare (1.45% withheld). The other components, which are often variable, are the unemployment taxes (varies by state) and the normal individual income tax withheld. This latter one is calculated based on a predetermined formula that considers your marital status and number of dependents (which is why you're forced to fill out this info when you first sign up for a job). A lot of times, this formula ends up withholding too much for people, so they get a refund when they file their taxes next year. If it withheld too little, you owe taxes. What I was referring to in reference to the chart is the 6.2% SS tax and 1.45% Medicare tax which is what the government determines as "payroll taxes." This category of taxes is actually half paid by the company and half paid by the individual. So when companies withhold the 6.2%, they have to eventually pay 12.4% to the government for the social security portion of their payrolls. Same with Medicare (3.9%). That's why I say individuals only pay 18% of that 36% shown, and of the 33% people not paying taxes, they are roughly only paying 33% of that 18% pie piece.
Oh ok I see.
Regardless, the majority of the people who aren't paying taxes are like <$50k yearly income. I don't think those guys would have that big of an impact on government revenue from taxes.
|
At the rate of which we have spent and seems like we will continue to spend, it just seems so irresponsible to keep piling on the debt for future generations of tax payers. The economic damage done to this country will be insurmountable if it keeps up like this
Edit: I also like how no one cares 1/3 just get a free ride.
|
|
|
from wapo a while back.
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent"
go become one of those 1/3 and see if it's a really awesome free ride. i bet it would be fun.
|
On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are?
I've been searching for a blog someone made about their dad only making about $100k a year and then bitching about how Obama's proposed tax rate for the upper class meant his family was going to make a lot less. Can't find it thou, but that truly made me laugh.
Depending on how many kids a person has I think anything over 100k/year is just "spare" money. Maybe the tax code should just be that any amount over 100k/year goes to the government.
|
here is a chart that shows how progressive income tax is in the US.
As stated above, once you are rich you can fiddle with your money to pay a lot less, 17% for buffet. I'm all for closing loopholes and tax being more progressive (so the working class and middle class pay less). The rich do pay the large majority of taxes, but still hardly their fair share it could be said.
As for other stats, the top 1% have about 35% of the wealth, not 99%. While that is certainly hugely un-proportionate, what gives better perspective to inequality is looking at the bottom -- the bottom 80% have <10%. The point for this topic is that monetarily it is hardly worth it to tax the bottom 50% (150million people).
So yes, we are able to sustain gov with less than 50% paying taxes.
Now, sustaining a democracy with around 50% of people not even bothering to vote is another matter. But, not like I even want 50% of people voting given how biased, uneducated, and uninformed they are.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On December 19 2009 00:23 Undisputed- wrote:
At the rate of which we have spent and seems like we will continue to spend, it just seems so irresponsible to keep piling on the debt for future generations of tax payers. The economic damage done to this country will be insurmountable if it keeps up like this
Edit: I also like how no one cares 1/3 just get a free ride.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/542.html
Look at the demographics table. 90% of the so called "free riders" are under the poverty level. Assuming a tax of 10% on those people, and assuming an average income of 20k, just for the fun of it: 76 billion. Now that may sound like a lot, but the average income of the bottom is NOT 20k.
Let's assume 10k: Comes out to be around 38 billion. Health care reform is about a trillion. A year in Iraq is 760 billion.
Taxing the poor gets you nowhere. You're making a big deal over absolutely nothing.
|
On December 19 2009 02:03 XoXiDe wrote:
from wapo a while back.
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent"
go become one of those 1/3 and see if it's a really awesome free ride. i bet it would be fun.
Sorry I don't fail at life : /
|
On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble?
Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance.
There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal.
Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee.
|
On December 19 2009 02:03 XoXiDe wrote:
from wapo a while back.
"Buffett cited himself, the third-richest person in the world, as an example. Last year, Buffett said, he was taxed at 17.7 percent on his taxable income of more than $46 million. His receptionist was taxed at about 30 percent"
go become one of those 1/3 and see if it's a really awesome free ride. i bet it would be fun.
What people don't realize is that this system comes from a progressive tax system, where the more you make, the more you are taxed. If you make 599,999 and are taxed at 15%, but then hit 600,000 you jump a tax bracket to 25%, you are obviously making less money. If you want a system that doesn't tax the low earners more than the rich (as a percent), you have to have a single tax rate, and enough exemptions to not have low earners taxed.
|
On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble?
Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society?
He also never said "lol money = fix"
Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread.
|
On December 19 2009 03:07 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance. There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal. Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee.
I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society?
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall).
I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar...
I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
|
On December 19 2009 07:55 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society? He also never said "lol money = fix" Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread.
What sort of resources do governments allocate? Who says what he wants is progress? Our education is getting worse, but, we spend more. Our healthcare is getting worse, but, we're paying more. When do we stop and critically assess what's going on before we emotionally submit to anal rape by the IRS?
|
On December 19 2009 08:39 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 07:55 PanN wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society? He also never said "lol money = fix" Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread. What sort of resources do governments allocate? Who says what he wants is progress? Our education is getting worse, but, we spend more. Our healthcare is getting worse, but, we're paying more. When do we stop and critically assess what's going on before we emotionally submit to anal rape by the IRS?
It should have been obvious from my initial post that I don't think our approach to any of those subjects has been adequate, indeed I think in each of the areas I mentioned we've failed to do anything satisfactory with existing levels of funding. In terms of taxation, however, I stand by what I said. We should tax so that those with the greatest means pay the largest share and those with the least means are provided for, and those of any means have access to a quality standard of public services including health care and education, up to and including post-secondary.
Certainly a substantial deal of reform is needed across the board to achieve any measure of meaningful progress. That progress still comes at a price. And as our government is more than willing to sacrifice over one trillion dollars to invade and occupy a country on spurious grounds, I think it's fair to throw THAT into the equation of necessary reform, taxation and spending, not to mention no small measure of ethical bankruptcy, racism, imperialism, nationalism and religious contamination across the board.
The point is, this issue is not something that can be discussed without a greater context, and attempting to do so is disingenuous to say the least.
|
Before we argue about such economic and social issues such as class in united states, taxes, fairness of capitalism etc, we should first do research.
I strongly suggest everyone interested in this topic to research sociological texts such as William Domhoff's classic "Who Rules America".
zeppelin said it right, social change won't happen "[...} as long as the rich get to write the tax code".
|
On December 19 2009 09:15 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 08:39 agorist wrote:On December 19 2009 07:55 PanN wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Who said anything about theft? He just said the government should allocate more resources to important things. Why are you against progress in society? He also never said "lol money = fix" Also, crab mentality? Really? He obviously wants things to IMPROVE, did you read the same post I did? Or did you skim through it faster than konadora does a thread. What sort of resources do governments allocate? Who says what he wants is progress? Our education is getting worse, but, we spend more. Our healthcare is getting worse, but, we're paying more. When do we stop and critically assess what's going on before we emotionally submit to anal rape by the IRS? The point is, this issue is not something that can be discussed without a greater context, and attempting to do so is disingenuous to say the least.
Yes indeed Louder, why don't you start doing that by adressing his post in the spoilers right here? it seems pretty broad in context to me~~ or has cognitive dissonance rendered such things as trivial, unimportant and not worth redress?
+ Show Spoiler +I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society?
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall).
I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar...
I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
|
i got most of my federal withholding back last year. but i also made very little money.
|
On December 19 2009 08:30 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:07 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance. There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal. Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee. I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society? How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government. Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall). I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar... I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
Alongside most economists, I believe that a free market that allows demand to be met by supply without restriction is the only fair way to allocate resources. However, some things must be centralized. One of those things is the protection of the right to life. I'm talking about services like the fire department, the police force, the judiciary system, etc. You could argue that we could privatize that as well, such as private fire fighters and private policing units. Why not pay some people to protect me from robbers? I'd gladly pay a few thousand a year for that, and they'd probably do a better job! Nonetheless, to settle disputes, an arbitration committee is required whose decisions are "final" that both parties accept, as per some kind of law. Otherwise it's just one guy's word against another. That all necessitates a centralized service that settles disputes, makes policy decisions, and enforces them, (i.e. government) and for that tax is not theft.
Health care and education, on the other hand, is a trickier issue. I think capitalism could definitely work in education, so long as getting educated is what everyone wants.
Usual public school teachers in Korea don't get paid much, but many private "hakwon" (academy) teachers in South Korea make a killing for their services. The main reason is that there is so much demand for high intelligence and "making it out there in the world" that the citizens are willing to pay good money for it.
It's a shame that intelligence isn't really the standard that Americans as a culture aspires for. All this leads to a low demand for education and thus lower pay for teachers. Now, you could ask yourself, has capitalism worked? But it seems far less than optimal to have a culture of uneducated people running our future. In the end it all boils down to convincing people that intelligence is hot, but when so many people are indifferent, it's difficult. To reiterate, i think that if demand were higher (if being smart is culturally savvy) capitalism would work on education.
|
|
|
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Actually, health care costs went up for four simple reasons:
1: The increase in lifespan, and the abundance of illnesses that strike our elderly population.
2: Similarly, the simple fact that there's a vast amount of diseases that we now know about and can treat.
3: The special interest caused government funding of corn, soy & other agricultural industries yielding food products that create an environment where it is cheaper to consume foodstuff that is much more likely to cause weight problems, and hence related health issues.
4: The 'for profit' attitude toward a very basic and required social service has caused massive amount of funds to be directed toward advertisement, enticement, copyright related costs (lobbying, etc). The purpose of large research pharma companies is just as much profit making for shareholders as it is research. The health care spending bubble is quite largely caused by greater spending on prescription drugs -- patients choosing to treat diabetes with a pill rather than excersize.
Again, you must understand that the GOVERNMENT is not an institution that stands AGAINST the corporate america. It exits in a symbiotic state, with the corporate america providing vast amount of funding for both parties, sitting on committees. foundations and think tanks that shape our thinking process and act as the first source whenever congress wants technical know-how. They have quite a say in what law gets to get passed. Take a look at NAFTA -- it is riddled with special interest exemptions.
Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall).
Since you do not have an understanding of how jobs are created, let me tell you how they are destroyed. Corporations move their job overseas, and create a feeling of resentment between local & foreign workers, when in fact the us and them are corporations & all workers. Great 'captains of industry' use to hire mobsters and goons to break up union meetings, maiming leaders. They would use tools such as mccarthyism to demonize and haunt any kind of left / union ideas. They would, historically, create a racial divide among workers pitting white workers against black workers, creating divisions based on race because it would help their cause.
You lack any kind of historical understanding of class & economic theory. You can not just simply spew forth ideological libertarian agenda without having done the research beforehand.
If you honestly think that we're best off allowing life dependent services such as health care & others to a free market... I propose you consider the often cited example about postal service. If postal service was to be a commercial enterprise. Think of all the small towns that are unprofitable -- they would lose service or get charged quite a lot.
|
On December 20 2009 03:25 Culture wrote:Show nested quote +
How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government.
Again, you must understand that the GOVERNMENT is not an institution that stands AGAINST the corporate america. It exits in a symbiotic state, with the corporate america providing vast amount of funding for both parties, sitting on committees. foundations and think tanks that shape our thinking process and act as the first source whenever congress wants technical know-how. They have quite a say in what law gets to get passed. Take a look at NAFTA -- it is riddled with special interest exemptions.
I think you're misunderstanding his statement. His point was that we don't have a free market because big corporations act in collusion with the government. He never said that the government is against corporate america; in fact, he directly points out that big corporations have come as a direct result of government involvement.
|
On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good.
You're so hilariously missing the point. Isn't that just what I said? That govt. can't control its spending for shit and that a democracy's primary purpose is racketeering for votes (what the hell else is the war on drugs)? What do you think a politician's job is? To continue to get elected. And because that means pandering to voters and buying off votes with spending, that's what politicians do. What do you think a civil servant's job is? Preserving his own ass. And hence, that's what they do. Ever worked in a govt job (I have)? You'll immediately know what I mean. Just like a CEO's real job is making the shareholders and board as happy as possible and thus getting the largest golden parachute possible.
People have this idea that the government is an altruistic disinterested force. It isn't. A government is made out of people, people who are primarily concerned with preserving their own ass as comfortably as possible.
Just as greed for money/profits drives corporations by definition, greed for votes/power and for getting elected/maintaining the status quo is what drives democracies, by definition.
The problem with govt. spending is an institutional one, just as the problem with modern corporations is. There is no easy solution.
P.S. Most people who are long-term homeless are in that state because of drug abuse problems. Its not something you can "solve" because, sometimes people themselves are the problem.
|
On December 20 2009 03:25 Culture wrote:
Actually, health care costs went up for four simple reasons:
1: The increase in lifespan, and the abundance of illnesses that strike our elderly population.
2: Similarly, the simple fact that there's a vast amount of diseases that we now know about and can treat.
3: The special interest caused government funding of corn, soy & other agricultural industries yielding food products that create an environment where it is cheaper to consume foodstuff that is much more likely to cause weight problems, and hence related health issues.
4: The 'for profit' attitude toward a very basic and required social service has caused massive amount of funds to be directed toward advertisement, enticement, copyright related costs (lobbying, etc). The purpose of large research pharma companies is just as much profit making for shareholders as it is research. The health care spending bubble is quite largely caused by greater spending on prescription drugs -- patients choosing to treat diabetes with a pill rather than excersize.
I don't think you quite understand how supply and demand works.
Why would people living longer or more treatments for more diseases increase the average healthcare cost an individual pays? More demand draws more providers to the marketplace to compete (an increase in supply). Oh, what am I saying, that's how it would work if we could quit building artificial government barriers.
Government subsidy? I've already ranted about that. Big Pharma? Turns out the FDA is a great way to reduce competition. Guess how much money and time it takes to pass drug qualification.
I also liked this part:
Since you do not have an understanding of how jobs are created, let me tell you how they are destroyed. Corporations move their job overseas, and create a feeling of resentment between local & foreign workers, when in fact the us and them are corporations & all workers. Great 'captains of industry' use to hire mobsters and goons to break up union meetings, maiming leaders. They would use tools such as mccarthyism to demonize and haunt any kind of left / union ideas. They would, historically, create a racial divide among workers pitting white workers against black workers, creating divisions based on race because it would help their cause.
Why would a corporation move its production overseas? What purpose could it serve? Taxes? Cheaper labor? Union laws? There's a natural balance between employer and employee and it has been evolving for a long time. Sure, things were pretty shitty for a lot of employees back in the day, but I don't see how this contributes to your argument. The bottom line is if you want to not lose jobs, don't make it more expensive for employers to employ individuals. Jobs aren't "destroyed" by evil corporations. Jobs are lost once again due to regulation.
A natural union is a fine entity; it's a group of individuals who seek to improve their working conditions. Grant them legal protection and they quickly turn cankerous. A slim balance must be found where the union doesn't cost a company too much and the workers are able to improve their employment conditions. If the union becomes too burdensome (such that the cost of replacing the workers is less than letting the union siphon) it is crucial that the employer is capable of cleaning house. Is this a bad thing? If the employer is capable of replacing all its union-ized employees I'd have to assert that it's only good. The employer was able to remain competitive, and, its offerings to employees were obviously sufficient considering it could replace the workers. Don't ever forget that a corporation can only make money naturally if it provides something the market wants. Your life is full of products made cheaply off-shores. You live with the benefits daily. Are you ready to eat your own words boycott affordable goods?
We can talk about the evils of corporations and unions all day; however, how about we get some context and scale:
What's the percentage of individuals incarcerated for non-violent crimes? What about the countless millions lost to the ambitions of leaders in war or otherwise poor policy? Hmm.
|
On December 20 2009 00:41 agorist wrote:Why do people think teachers don't get paid enough? http://www.payscale.com/research/US/All_K-12_Teachers/SalaryTeachers make a shit-ton; especially if you consider they literally take half the year off. An additional fact: public school teachers get paid more than private school teachers.
40-45k's not a shit-ton; it's actually pretty fucking low.
|
On December 19 2009 08:30 agorist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2009 03:07 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 03:05 agorist wrote:On December 18 2009 02:50 Louder wrote:On December 18 2009 02:40 FieryBalrog wrote:On December 17 2009 10:17 BuGzlToOnl wrote:
Don't follow too much into the mechanics of these kind of things, but taxing the upper class vs taxing the mid and lower classes makes a lot more sense seeing that they would have more to spare. Can anyone explain why this is backwards and what are the benefits of having things the way they are? No one can explain it, because it doesn't exist. The upper class get taxed more than the middle and lower classes. Did you really not know that? On December 18 2009 02:34 Louder wrote:
Poor people's taxes get paid by their employer. Since 1% of the population controls 95% of the wealth, I say let's put the burden on them. As if they'd even notice it missing. That would be great in a perfect world where the government knew how to control its own spending and had some idea of self-control. The govt's pockets are looser than a 5 dollar hooker and its self-control is worse than a 3 year old with a box of oreos. A democracy always caters to the lowest common denominator and a democratic govt is always more concerned about racketeering for votes above all else. Obviously the government's spending isn't perfect. I'd much rather see us devote our resources to taking care of our citizens via proper public education, affordable college, health care, and a social safety net that prevents homelessness completely. Instead we spend vast sums of money on wars we shouldn't be fighting, pet projects of senators and congressmen nestled into legislation read by no one, and a "war" on drugs that has done orders of magnitude more harm than good. So you'd like to make education and healthcare (and housing? lol) more expensive through theft. Awesome. You're a grade-A human individual. Have you thought about the consequences of longterm subsidization? Have you read no articles highlighting the deterioration of public education in the United States? No articles highlighting the decreasing usefulness of college degrees? I agree with you on war. Wars are nonsense. Our congress -- misfits. We need to stop thinking that government is the solution to all of our fucking problems. It is no silver bullet. You can't just throw money at education, healthcare, or poverty and expect everything to turn to gold. All that happens (without blatant pricefixing) is that the market adjusts to the subsidy and prices rise. In short, the tax dollars you spent to make something more cheap ends up making that something more expensive. But it's invisible right? Someone else is paying for it -- a rich person -- so, who cares? I wonder, how much do you donate to charity a year? Or is it that you think crab-mentality is noble? Taxes are theft, are they? I certainly never said "throw money" at anything, though you're pretty clearly a rabid conservative in love with capitalism and the sanctity of the market. I think the current state of health care in this country serves as ample evidence that free market capitalism does not work for health care and that the "rules" simply do not apply. In fact, there are some things that are not ethically justifiably subject to the rules of capitalism - like health care and education. Further it's appalling to me when people like you take offense to the suggestion that the wealthiest members of society should be expected to give something back to help the least fortunate. The system we have allows them to get filthy rich and gives them endless advantages and avails them to lifestyles of extreme exorbitance. There are a substantial number of countries who provide a solid safety net for the poor and jobless, health care, and quality education both before and including college. They do so with reasonable taxation of the wealthy and with effective spending of that tax revenue. It's not theft, it's called living in a society, and behaving as a member of that society, and paying your fair share. The end all, be all of human existence is NOT to acquire vast sums of wealth, and an "open market" is not an end itself. It's not even an adequate or ethically viable means to any worthy goal. Not that you will believe me, and not that I have to explain this, but I make about $125k per year, and I donate $250 per month each to two charities. In addition to this I'm a contractor and pay more taxes than someone who is an employee. I'll start off with a question for you to think about as I explain a few things. Are we a free-market capitalist society? How is our healthcare "free-market"? I can't purchase healthcare across state lines or prescriptions from China. States mandate what insurance companies must cover in plans, meaning I have very little choice in my coverage. Private insurance companies (now reduced to monopolistic status due to inane barriers to entry) compete only against subsidized federal entities. You can go ahead and blame a healthcare insurer, but ask yourself -- why have the direct costs for healthcare increased? Subsidization has fueled healthcare inflation in rates far beyond standard economic inflation for decades. Has private greed caused of this? Yes. How did it do it? Law. The only way to avoid competition is to use force, and, nobody is better at force than government. Taxation on wealth and income is theft. You can lie to yourself all you'd like, however, ask yourself what happens when you stop paying your income taxes. You might say "Hey, it's the cost of living in a society!" or even worse, "without the society, you wouldn't have earned anything!". You'd however be perpetuating the gross misunderstanding that all that we earn is possible by the grace of our altruistic buddy, government. Jobs don't exist because employment is the fundamental component of a functioning society. A job exists because someone noticed a demand for a product and service and provided to others what they wanted. An exchange can only be made voluntarily in the absence of force. In this aspect, capitalism is an engine that most accurately meets demand with supply. To deviate from this balance is folly; you cannot do better without impacting something else (windfall). I love your rather gross misunderstanding of reality. Fair share? What is that? Do you get to decide what others should pay? What in fact is the point of living? Helping others? Helping the state help others? Helping the state help others for the greatness of our society? This sounds familiar... I believe your income and your charity. I admire the fact that you actually donate to charity, it at least shows you support some of your ideals. Pardoning the false compromise I'm about to make, wouldn't you rather donate to charity 30% of your personal income how you pleased rather than to a government? Do you really think the government can spend your money better than you can?
Characterizing a different viewpoint as a gross misunderstanding of reality is asking for nothing but a flame war. You once again completely misread my post - I think you skim - and I'm not going to indulge that with further explanations. I'll just agree to disagree.
|
I am going to give this one more go. I also am quite curious what kind of educational background you're coming from -- I am currently working on my graduate degree in economics.
An increase in lifespan and treatable diseases will clearly increase healthcare spending per person. Imagine living for twenty years and only treating broken bones, and now compare this to the 70~+ lifespan and the plethora of diseases we treat (and the evolutionary inherited high age related illnesses that play no role in young age fitness or perhaps even give an advantage).
TL;DR: Older people require more healthcare.
Why would a corporation move its production overseas? What purpose could it serve? Taxes? Cheaper labor? Union laws? There's a natural balance between employer and employee and it has been evolving for a long time. Sure, things were pretty shitty for a lot of employees back in the day, but I don't see how this contributes to your argument. The bottom line is if you want to not lose jobs, don't make it more expensive for employers to employ individuals. Jobs aren't "destroyed" by evil corporations. Jobs are lost once again due to regulation.
So, by your logic we should get rid of social security, healthcare benefits, increase working hours to longer than a 40 hour work week, etc -- all these steps will make us more welcoming to corporations. Let's turn back social progress so we can be competitive with workers in southeast asia that work for $1-2 a day, instead of bringing the progress we've made here to them.
The us & them does not spread across national borders but rather across socio-economic class.
Honestly, when I read the shit you're saying I want to cry at the lack of any kind of education you have on the subject. What kind of knowledge of union policies, history & operations do you have to make your claims? Have you done research into organizations like Business Roundtable & the like, read a ton of their reports and other published material. Have you sat in on AFL-CIO conferences, researched union history and the relevant information? Do you know of the top of your head what very relevant piece of legislation came out in 1935? How can you talk about a subject where your argument comes from nowhere but this 'ideal' of free markets (Something, you know, actual economists do not advocate, but what would I know about that...).
Let me draw a simple parallel of the argument you're making right now, and we'll draw the comparison to starcraft.
We have a community of economists, sociologists & the like who do plethora of research on the subject. A subset of those are corporate community sponsored thinktanks that work on specific goals set to them by the upper class who see it in their best interest to reproduce their own class without too much social turmoil (for this aspect within starcraft there is no comparison, as there is no cross class conflict).
We'll compare these people to people involved with the korean scene, and folks that play iccup. They have some sort of knowledge, both theoretical and practical, and something similar to peer review (forum discussion, etc).
You, agorist, are outside of this community. You're that flamer on gamefaqs that thinks that starcraft is about massing hydralisks and spamming clicks all over. You simply do not have the knowledge to make your argument.
|
Yeah, neither do those famous Austrian economists either. You're surely more qualified than Rothbard, Mises, Hayek, etc.
|
Austrian school of economics to modern economic understanding is what Aristotle's four elements is to modern chemistry.
You know, the point of a science is that it has to be based in reality and be testable and repeatable with a set of ideas that can be tested. Go to your local university and ask any economics professor about information economics and it's relation to the austrian school. Ask them about what the recent field of game theory has to say to free market economics. Go, google.
|
On December 20 2009 10:25 Culture wrote:
Austrian school of economics to modern economic understanding is what Aristotle's four elements is to modern chemistry.
You know, the point of a science is that it has to be based in reality and be testable and repeatable with a set of ideas that can be tested. Go to your local university and ask any economics professor about information economics and it's relation to the austrian school. Ask them about what the recent field of game theory has to say to free market economics. Go, google.
That's a terrible analogy. The Austrian school of economics as well as the Chicago school of economics is more like what Newtonian physics is to the larger field of physics today (namely, quantum/astro). It still explains largely what is visible in the big picture, but fails to explain the minutiae of individual transactions. When you are discussing a topic as macro as the usage of tax revenues, many of the principles of those schools of thought still apply.
Also, just because you are in graduate school does not give you the right to be a Grade A prick. In fact, you probably suffer from extreme bias based on what school you go to.
|
Also, just because you are in graduate school does not give you the right to be a Grade A prick. Actually, that's exactly what it does. That's why you go to grad school in the first place, so that when people start mouthing off about something they don't know about, you can break their nose with a karate chop, throw your diploma at their face and say "wipe yourself, off, you look disgusting".
|
On December 20 2009 10:25 Culture wrote:
Austrian school of economics to modern economic understanding is what Aristotle's four elements is to modern chemistry.
You know, the point of a science is that it has to be based in reality and be testable and repeatable with a set of ideas that can be tested. Go to your local university and ask any economics professor about information economics and it's relation to the austrian school. Ask them about what the recent field of game theory has to say to free market economics. Go, google.
I'm sorry buddy, Economic science is not at all a science that can be tested empirically. simply because human action is not easily reproducible and if you do test it -- people would act differently because they would know they are in a test -- the factors are just too ????????? ya feeel?.
There is no such thing as quantitative economics. "While it is appropriate in the natural sciences where factors can be isolated in laboratory conditions, the actions of human beings are too complex for this treatment! Instead one should isolate the logical processes of human action -- Praxeology" - some austrian
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/numbers/images/Numbers_Figure-1_What-are-fed-govts-sources-of-revenue_3.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.qbkaccounting.com/500px-US_income_tax_2008.svg.png)
