EPTOn July 27 2011 00:01 BestZergOnEast wrote:
my political beliefs.
my political beliefs.
I thought this was a science.
The US debt (proper debate) - Page 19
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
jon arbuckle
Canada443 Posts
I thought this was a science. | ||
|
Zeri
United States773 Posts
On July 26 2011 23:07 Traeon wrote: It was my impression that taxes for the rich have been at a historical low. A quick google search reveals this: Tax rates 1960-2011 Source http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/us-tax-rates-for-the-rich-then-and-now/ According to this, in 2011 the 1 mil plus earners pay almost half as much as back in 1960. Yep, this is correct. The suggested 'tax hike' right now, isn't so much as an increase in taxes, its a repeal of the strong tax cuts that the only the wealthiest Americans got under Bush. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
The rich pay more than enough tax already. We need to cut their taxes, not raise them. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On July 26 2011 23:58 BestZergOnEast wrote: So their agrarian lifestyle didn't provide enough food? Is that your claim? Nightfall : Yes that's true. So what? Why should we penalize someone for working hard? that seems stupid. I do not consider myself of the same stature as Mises, if that is what you are asking. I am an austrian because I have read the arguments of the Austrian school and I agree with them. Hayek was not a member of the Austrian school, although he was a student of Mises. MiraMax, the argument you have presented is what Chomsky dubbs the 'propaganda model'. There is only a very narrow band of debate allowed in the media in western society . Everything else is ignored, attacked, marginalized. If I am wrong about anything, I would be indebted to you for proving me wrong; but an argument based on the popularity of a view is not very compelling. Do you include scientific journals in what you refer to as "media in western society"? Do you realize how silly "the evil mainstream is marginalizing my evident objective truths" actually sounds? Don't you see that if things were really as clear cut as you put them, then almost everybody would be in. There just is no conspiracy against the ideal economic system! Excluding Hayek from the Austrian School is the most retarded thing, I have ever read with regard to the Austrian School (and I quite am sure that the Friedrich von Hayek Institute which is otherwise known as the International Insitute "Austrian School of Economics" would tend to disagree). Now you want to start the "then-prove-me-wrong" game?! You prove the following statement wrong first: "Tax increases can be an economically viable route in order to reduce budget deficits." Can you? | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
Tax increases will not fix deficits because politicians will just spend the new money. . Further I would rather have a deficit than a tax increase. They already spend more than they have, and you think giving them more money will make them spend less? That's absurd. Anyway it's irrelevant; i don't seek to reform government, to "make it work". I don't want it to be efficient. I want to abolish it. But my point which you don't seem to understand is that you are saying I'm wrong, but not proving why I'm wrong. | ||
|
targ
Malaysia445 Posts
From what I see, cutting back on defense spending would help a bit, but not really enough to make a huge dent on America's debt. The two huge money-drainers are Social Security and the healthcare program. As I see it, the only way to balance the books are as follows: 1. To raise the retirement age, which will help by reducing the money paid out, as the government would have to pay the same amount of money to each person each year, but for fewer years on average. It would also mean more taxes coming in. I don't really see reducing the payment given out each month as a viable alternative, as it might risk seniors having not enough money to survive. 2. To generally reduce the money spent on healthcare by focusing on incentives for prevention of disease. More exercise and a better diet, etc etc. Maybe money could be passed out if people met a certain fitness index, of course the amount given would be statistically calculated to be less than the money that would be spent if they stayed unfit. 3. Raising taxes on large corporations? I'll have to do more reading on that one. | ||
|
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On July 26 2011 23:01 BestZergOnEast wrote: Your characterization of the industrial revolution is inaccurate. Workers of course got paid (else why would they work). They didn't get paid much compared to modern times, perhaps, but we've also had hundreds of years of economic development since then. Workers actually prospered greatly during the industrial revolution. You have to understand working 10 hours in a factory sucks, but working 14 hours scratching a living out of the dirt is even worse. You couldn't have HAD safety nets or the welfare state during the industrial revolution. Where is the wealth going to come from? There wasn't enough to steal. America's current prosperity comes from one factor - the economic freedom in which that country existed from 1776-1914. The laissez-faire approach to the economy lead to massive accumulations of wealth. Taxes AREN'T low for big business in America, The american government is spending 5 trillion dollars this year. You think that means low taxes? Well I have one word for you pal - No. I have one word for you pal- Wrong. The United States position in the world comes from a combination of geographic safety, imperial foreign policy towards other American countries, and the devastation of the European continent in the beginning of the 20th century. That is not a complete list but they undeniably contributed to the US's rise to prominence. Also let's not romanticize early industrial factory work, 10 hours a day was only the norm after early labor groups staged strikes and lobbied their politicians, it was work 14 hours on a farm or 14 hours in a factory. On July 26 2011 23:07 BestZergOnEast wrote: Then why did people choose to work in factories as opposed to staying on their agrarian paradises? There have always been luddites that oppose progress because of irrational fear but we shoudn't let them hold us back. Bounded rationality- they thought it would be better but as urbanization increases the value of each laborer goes down and they lose out individually. In general standard of living was bad for both groups and due to different positions there was lacking will to ally politically. On July 26 2011 23:35 BestZergOnEast wrote: As far as conceding that the establishment hack economists have valid arguments - no thank you. Objective rights and wrongs exist. This isn't preschool. Everyone's opinion doesn't count. You're not a beautiful and unique snowflake. Ideas have consequences, and if you are wrong it means things are dramatically worse for a lot of people. You concede you do not know which side is right and which side is wrong; perhaps you should defer to someone who does.. Austrians are the hacks. There is a reason that outside of random internet forums, there is no powerful voice supporting Austrian economics. People like Greenspan refer to Austrian Economics in the past tense. Real info about US tax policy: http://factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/ Relative total wealth of higher brackets. http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html It is very important to keep in mind that the top 1% has significant revenue outside of simple income. The angry rich guy actually had some good points about increasing the capital gains tax rates over marginal income tax rates to encourage investment of profits over issuance of dividends, particularly with a sunset on increased cap gains taxes. At least I think that was the point of one of his posts a few pages back. His argument was angry and not persuasive though, sort of muddled and cofusing. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On July 27 2011 00:19 BestZergOnEast wrote: Actually, the propaganda model is not silly at all - again your efforts are to demean and debase instead of debate. Scientific journals are not really part of the media, becuase they do not have mass consumption audence. They are part of academia. The media refers to newspapers, television, radio... the internet I suppose. Tax increases will not fix deficits because politicians will just spend the new money. . Further I would rather have a deficit than a tax increase. They already spend more than they have, and you think giving them more money will make them spend less? That's absurd. Anyway it's irrelevant; i don't seek to reform government, to "make it work". I don't want it to be efficient. I want to abolish it. But my point which you don't seem to understand is that you are saying I'm wrong, but not proving why I'm wrong. Okay, here I go proving a statement of you wrong... You stated: On July 26 2011 23:58 BestZergOnEast wrote: Hayek was not a member of the Austrian school, although he was a student of Mises. Since you seem to consider the Mises Institute as authoritative here is what they state on their website: "Friedrich A. Hayek - The member of the Austrian School who has produced the most subtle and detailed critique of the notion that the social sciences should ape the methods of the physical sciences..." Source The fact that you can make such a basic error while claiming to be familiar with the Austrian School shows to me that you are either deluded in assessing your own expertise or trying to mislead others. Either way, it doesn't look good ... | ||
|
Partywave
United States88 Posts
On July 24 2011 03:59 horste wrote: After seeing the "do you love glorious USA debt" thread, and seeing that it's complete troll bait, I decided to go ahead and post a proper thread on the issue. This question has been bugging me for a long time. How exactly do Americans look at their own debt, and compare it to the current crisis in Europe? From what I've read and seen in interviews, the news,etc. I always get the feeling that the general US spokesperson shrugs at the US debt, and then redirects attention to the EU (eg Greece). An example that comes to my mind is Timothy Geitner that urged the EU to take firm actions in order to dam the financial crisis, because otherwise it would have a detrimental effect on the world economy. I don't mean to talk crap, but this to me looked very arrogant for a person that's the financial supervisor for a country that has an insane amount of debt and will basicly stop functioning by august 2nd. p.s. I would really like it if this didn't turn into a republican vs democratic government debate  If I need to do things in order to make this a proper thread, please say so, it's the first time I posted anything (I'd link newspapers, but I doubt lots of people here can read dutch ^^ ) Plain and simple, us young Americans are going to have to pay for the sins and malicious spending of our fathers. It gives me a headache thinking about how we're going to get ourselves out of this one. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
If conditions were the same at factories than on the farm, why did people choose to go to the factories? I am not saying things were great during the industrial revolution, just that they were better than before. Standards of living skyrocket for the poor during this time period. Standard of living was "bad"? Compared to what? Today's life style? No shit sherlock. If life was the same @ the factory than on the farm then why did we see rapid increases in their standards of living? The reason why mainstream economists defend any and every state intervention in the economy is because you make a lot more money arguing for a minimum wage then you do against it. MiraMax : whether or not Hayek was a member of the Austrian school is supremely unimportant. If you want I will concede you are right. Hayek is a member of the Austrian school. Now prove your other assertions. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
On July 27 2011 00:44 BestZergOnEast wrote: You are correct that America benefited from it's geography but the devastaton of the European continent is a result of the theories on government that were in place at the time and having an imperial foreign policy (which America didn't in the time period we are discussing 1776-1914) doesn't make your economy stronger, since high taxes are necessary to pay for global empire. Nobody is talking about the reasons for WW2. European countries and Japan were in ruins. The US infrastructure was intact. The US also benefited from the reconstruction carried out with the help of their corporations. It doesn't come as surprise that the US' economy grew dominant in these circumstances. | ||
|
MiraMax
Germany532 Posts
On July 27 2011 00:44 BestZergOnEast wrote: You are correct that America benefited from it's geography but the devastaton of the European continent is a result of the theories on government that were in place at the time and having an imperial foreign policy (which America didn't in the time period we are discussing 1776-1914) doesn't make your economy stronger, since high taxes are necessary to pay for global empire. But your mistake is you are looking at the conditions of prosperity and then asking "okay, so what system was in place during this time of prosperity". That's like you have a basketball coach, and he spends years training his team, recruiting top talent, making his team #1. Then that coach dies, and some idiot comes in who doesn't know what he's doing. The team will still be incredible for a while, but over time it will fade from glory owing to mismanagement. If conditions were the same at factories than on the farm, why did people choose to go to the factories? I am not saying things were great during the industrial revolution, just that they were better than before. Standards of living skyrocket for the poor during this time period. Standard of living was "bad"? Compared to what? Today's life style? No shit sherlock. If life was the same @ the factory than on the farm then why did we see rapid increases in their standards of living? The reason why mainstream economists defend any and every state intervention in the economy is because you make a lot more money arguing for a minimum wage then you do against it. MiraMax : whether or not Hayek was a member of the Austrian school is supremely unimportant. If you want I will concede you are right. Hayek is a member of the Austrian school. Now prove your other assertions. Which other assertions? And here I thought you would return the benefit and actually prove anything I said wrong. (And please provide irrefutible evidence and not only bald claims!). Cheers! | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
ikl2
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
The last time a deal was made of the "$2 in spending cuts for $1 in tax hikes" variety, they increased taxes, and didn't do a damned thing to reduce spending because they just...don't...give a shit. The deal was made in 1990, under a so-called fiscal-conservative's term. Meanwhile, Obama, who sternly opposed a debt limit increase in 2006 is here today, asking to do the same thing. The tax hikes are real, but the spending cuts never happen. Administrations keep using the 'invest in the future' line in order to justify any and all spending. I mean, I can see two scenarios here: 1) Members of Congress, the House, the Senate etc. haven't got a clue what it's like, and how difficult it is both being president, and balancing the budget, and they eat a giant bowl of humble pie if they get in office, turning themselves into big, fat hypocrites in the process. or 2) Politics is a big bunch of old farts playing the same game, while convincing us we have any kind of impact on the decisions that get made, and/or what the most important issue of the day is. The fact that the debt-limit increase is some kind of big spectacle right now, even though it's been flawlessly increased year-upon-year, sometimes multiple times a year, is leaning me towards #2 being more accurate. This is a fake 'crisis' and its no coincidence that an election is on the way. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
http://mises.org/pdf/asc/2003/asc9yates.pdf Given a true statement, we can, by using deduction, obtain other true statements from it. These new statements not only are true—their truth is guaranteed! If the statements we started with are true, then our conclusions are also true…. An argument in which the conclusion is correctly deduced from the premises is called a valid argument. If we can (somehow) arrive at true premises, then we are guaranteed true conclusions. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
| ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On July 27 2011 00:44 BestZergOnEast wrote: You are correct that America benefited from it's geography but the devastaton of the European continent is a result of the theories on government that were in place at the time and having an imperial foreign policy (which America didn't in the time period we are discussing 1776-1914) doesn't make your economy stronger, since high taxes are necessary to pay for global empire. But your mistake is you are looking at the conditions of prosperity and then asking "okay, so what system was in place during this time of prosperity". That's like you have a basketball coach, and he spends years training his team, recruiting top talent, making his team #1. Then that coach dies, and some idiot comes in who doesn't know what he's doing. The team will still be incredible for a while, but over time it will fade from glory owing to mismanagement. If conditions were the same at factories than on the farm, why did people choose to go to the factories? I am not saying things were great during the industrial revolution, just that they were better than before. Standards of living skyrocket for the poor during this time period. Standard of living was "bad"? Compared to what? Today's life style? No shit sherlock. If life was the same @ the factory than on the farm then why did we see rapid increases in their standards of living? The reason why mainstream economists defend any and every state intervention in the economy is because you make a lot more money arguing for a minimum wage then you do against it. Stop saying that people "chose" to work in factories. It's not true, no matter how often you say. When there's only choice between hunger and factory work, then that's not a "voluntary choice" but you are forced by economic reasons. Life only became better because technology (especially medicine) became better. Population exploded because of massivley better medicine and the industrialization of the agrarian economy, which provided much more stuff to eat. But because of the industrialization in the agrarian sector, people lost their jobs together with all artisans who could not compete anymore. And your whole premise is wrong. The rapid industrialization only circa happened in the second half of the 19th century. (Before that, the USA was not seen on the same level as European powers). It had not that much to do with laisez-faire policies, but rather with a massive influx of millions of European immigrants, a vast ressource base in the west, and a compact industrial complex in the east. And your whole "trickle-down" economy "facts" are just a joke. This even has been by real life been proven that this does not work that way. That's why all western nation stand nowadays in the shitter. Before Thatcher and Reagan they reigned the world and soon "we're cutting the shirts for the chinese." | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On July 27 2011 01:02 BestZergOnEast wrote: Traeon : the American economy was dominant well before WWII, and this is where the seeds of economic prosperity were planted. Centuries of freedom, individual ownership of private property... capitalism. America is rich in spite of the welfare / warfare state that came after, not because of; as proof many nations have attempted the welfare warfare state, none of them are rich compared to america. A few nations have attempted laissez-faire capitalism and they have all skyrocketted towards prosperity. Are you for real?! Norwegen and Sweden stand much better than America, have much less debt, less crime, are better in nearly everything because of their welfare-state. The USA dominated the world because Europe destroyed each other, and the Soviet-Union sucked. The USA just were the only one left. | ||
|
BestZergOnEast
Canada358 Posts
Life became better because of capitalism. Because market competition demanded it. Because individuals acting in their own economic self interest, only trying to make their life better, only trying to enrich themselves, as a side effect made everyone's life better. That's the beauty of capitalism... a new industry springs up, you have jobs, subsidiary industries... it's merely coincidence of course that people who never saw a dime now have a dollar. Technology definitely improves things, but a lot of technology is developed only because of the market economy. I am not talking specifically about America, when I talk about industrialization. I am talking about industrialization when I talk about industrialization. So no, I'm not wrong, since as you just admitted industrialization happened earlier in Europe. The "trickle down" economics criticism is just a left wing buzz word. Doesn't mean anything. It's sloganeering, not the remarks of a serious analysis. | ||
| ||
