|
On September 20 2011 09:59 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:49 Supamang wrote:On September 20 2011 09:43 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:31 Supamang wrote:On September 20 2011 08:29 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:24 Falling wrote:
Well only if you invest 1 billion into one enterprize alone. What's more realistic is it's much easier to lose $10M or $100M. But that's why being wealthy makes it easier to gain more wealth, you have deeper pockets, you can survive a failed business venture, ride out a bad economy and so on and so forth.
But if everything comes down to what is moral, I think the next question that would be reasonable is where does that morality come from? Is it absolute or relative and why should we follow it? Because moralness is a matter "You ought to... or ought not to..." So then given that we can choose to or not, what is our standard and what is our compulsion? Yeah and it's also more realistic that you're only gonna make like $10k instead of $1m. Seriously dude? come on, this is a waste of time. Having money doesn't necessarily raise your EV when investing, it just changes the amounts, in BOTH columns. Well, I personally believe that morality comes from God. But I don't expect other people to agree with me and I also don't expect our laws to directly come from the Bible. I'm a complete minimalist. I think the most moral thing to do is to stay out of people's lives as much as possible... from a government's standpoint. I dont think that Morality and God have any place in this discussion. I cant believe youre arguing your case against progressive tax brackets using Morality as your support base. You say its immoral to take money from someone and give it to someone else. Isnt it also immoral to leave the needy to suffer and die even when it is within your power to help them? Correct me if im wrong, but doesnt Jesus advocate giving to those who need when they ask? If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother If you argue that it should be left to the individual to give his wealth away, why isnt it up to the individuals running the government to use their power to uphold the Morality of God? By taxing the rich more than taxing the poor, the ones running this country are actually being more Moral than those withholding their wealth from the poor. Right? Basically, forget everything I said earlier and everything you have said about Morality. If you think that letting the rich improves our economy because it allows them to invest and expand businesses more rapidly or whatever other rational reason you have, go ahead and argue that. However, trying to bring in Morals to this discussion is pointless because Morality is subjective. On September 20 2011 08:25 Holophonist wrote:
I'm not going to read through 40 pages of idiocy. Especially considering the fact that I've NEVER heard a good argument for it and I doubt I'm going to find it on a sc2 forum. Oh and dont be that guy...Youre here having a meaningful discussion and youre gonna suggest that people on an SC2 forum cant possibly have the intelligence and/or knowledge to argue with you properly just because youre mad that people disagree with you? Ugh I'l answer your last point first: STOP WASTING MY TIME WITH HYPERBOLE. I didn't say we can't possibly have the intelligence to figure this stuff out. What I actually said was I doubt I'd find it on a SC2 forum. I'd say 80% of what I've written here over the past couple hours is stuff like this. I have to explain myself when I really shouldn't. The terrible inconsistency in your suggestion that the people in power are using their "power" to do what's right is that they're using other people's faculties/resources, not their own. total. waste. of. time. You completely ignored the core of my post LOL. I was saying that its a double standard for you to argue using morals as a base when the people you are defending are being immoral by not giving out their wealth. Basically, Im saying its useless to argue using morals as your support because there are so many standards for morality (even within God) that youre bound to look like a hypocrite its not a "total.waste.of.time", but youre obviously only saying that because youre angry at not having a good argument against me. So you target my afterthought and argue against that for the majority of your post instead of the actual meat of my original argument. You also say that this thread is "40 pages of idiocy" and say that you wont find a good argument on an SC2 forum. How is that NOT suggesting that those on TL.net lack the intelligence to argue against you? Lol, Im not the one slinging around inconsistency, you are. I left it out because you answered it yourself. The quote you used said nothing about the government making your charitable contributions for you. Your quote... your whole post... is what doesn't have a place in this thread. And the rich... particularly the rich in the US are among the most charitable people in the history of the planet. And I said I "doubt" I'll find the answer on a sc2 forum. Because obviously the main reason people are here at all is because of sc2, not because they like to argue economics. It's possible, of course, but I have no reason to think so. again, you're an idiot and you're wasting my time. I have enough smart people to respond to, I'm not gonna waste any more effort on you, or people like you. fuck off.
First of all, youre getting way to heated considering my first post was about using rational arguments and not morals to argue against progressive taxes. I was also suggesting that you dont generalize poeple here merely based on the fact that we are SC players
Second, way to resort to semantics by focusing on a single word in your post. Either way, the word "doubt" still means you were suggesting something. Also, your argument about SC2 forums is moot because people who come here for SC2 will go to the SC2 section. People who want to discuss other things, such as economics, will see threads in the General section and go to discuss. If there was only 1 forum on this website, then you might have more of a point. Also, SC2 and economics knowledge have nothing to do with each other. There can be SC2 players who know nothing about economics, there can be SC2 players who know a lot about it.
Third, youre basing your judgment about rich people and charity on flat amounts and youre disregarding cost of living. Yes, rich people might give away a lot of money to charity, but usually even those large amounts are only fractions of percentages of their total net worth. There are plenty of charitable middle-class citizens who not only give a higher percentage of their net worth as donations but also might be cutting into necessities to do so. You cant say "Mr. X is better than Mr. Y because he gave $100K to charity while Mr. Y only gave $10" when Mr. Y is cutting into his mortgage payments to do so while Mr. X is cutting into his savings account for a new yacht.
Fourth, Im not saying the quote calls for government to take from people to give to charity. Im saying that you SHOULD NOT be arguing using morality as your basis of argument. How do you not get that? Youre saying government is immoral for taking from people to give to those in need. Im saying God suggests that its immoral for the rich to be holding out from the needy in the first place. The whole reason for me quoting the bible and talking about morality was NOT to say the government was being the moral party by taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. The reason for my original post was to say that you cant argue with morality when those you are defending are being immoral by not being nearly as charitable as they can be.
Basically, stop using morality to argue your position. Use real arguments based on economics
|
On September 20 2011 10:28 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 10:17 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 10:05 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff. Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad. The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument. Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute. The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything. No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic. No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people. When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education. you completely flipped what I said.. I said taxes AREN'T immoral. The only thing I'm trying to argue against in this thread is the disparity between the rich's share and the poor/middle class's share. And to clarify, I don't believe the poor/middle class should pay more, I think the rich should pay less and we should spend less. your last 2 paragraphs truly showcase your ignorance. Everything comes down to careful calculations and RISK. It's not like blackjack, but it is like poker. And, like I said, you can do better in poker if you have a big stack.. but you have to USE IT WELL. It doesn't just accumulate chips on its own. Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars isn't nothing. If it were, he wouldn't be Warren Buffet. He'd be the old guy that sits on his porch and yells at neighborhood cats... that aren't even there. I was just positing that taxes were immoral, to argue that the moral argument is ridiculous in the first place. Again, I don't really care because I'm talking economics, not morality. Er. But I never said he didn't have to use it well. I simply said it was much easier for him to make way more money. I never said money generates more money magically. And yes, Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars IS nothing. He gives away BILLIONS of dollars in charities yearly. Risking 1 million is nothing to him. Hell, Warren Buffett even agrees with me! But you're not even talking sound economics. We don't HAVE to spend as much as we do. And I said way back like 2 hours ago that of course it's easier to make the second million than the first, but there's an additional level of risk that you didn't have in making the first million. Something you never acknowledge. What is unsound in my economics? What do you want to cut? I'm not saying the government isn't bloated, but there are a lot of jobs in the government right now. Making too large cuts means there's a lot of people that are suddenly unemployed. I mean FFS Warren Buffett agrees with me and he knows a hell of a lot more about economics than both of us. There's no risk in making the first million? Where the bloody hell did you get that from? You go and try make $1 million dollars without risking anything. I do not acknowledge the risk because the level of wealth we are talking about is people who can easily afford it anyway. It's not as big a risk to them. Also, I don't really see how the risk alters my point in any way.
You're exhibiting a pretty common economic fallacy. It's called the unseen. The jobs that would be "lost" if you cut government spending, would be made up in the private sector due to the decrease in taxes. And given the government's inefficiency, the jobs would likely produce more WEALTH. When I refer to wealth, I'm talking about taking some crude material/idea and refining it into something better. That's the only way for people, as a whole, to become more wealthy. The only time you have a net loss in a job is if something is destroyed.
|
Canada11266 Posts
On September 20 2011 09:50 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:36 Falling wrote:
And that's where we reach the impasse.
Our answer to why more of their money is being taken for the same service is because they actually have money. To which you reply that's immoral. Then we ask, why is it's immoral? Because it's unfair. Then we say it's not about fairness, it's about a realistic consideration of where the money is.
I said it before and I'll say it again. In the interests of fairness, you can tax all the way down the grade one's lunch money, but you won't get very much. So why bother? We value giving the poor a few tax benefits to make it a little easier for them and there's little money to be had.
We essentially do not care for your value, so why should we care? There's no way to argue because we're arguing from two entirely set of assumptions. I don't agree with your ideology and I see no reason why I need to explain the tax code based on it. You won't explain why your ideology is relevant, but want us to argue based on your set of presuppositions.
Edit
And it certainly is not equivalent of the rich giving money to the poor as though law enforcement is some welfare program, depositing straight into the poor's bank accounts. The money goes to a third party run by the government for the benefit of both. Like I said, the onus is on all of you to explain yourselves for implementing the system... or rather defending the people who did. You are the one who has to explain why your unfairness should be accepted. But I'll bite anyway. You say it's a realistic considering of where the money is. You say that as if spending doesn't even come into the picture. You assume we NEED the tax revenue, and therefore we have to take it from the only people who HAVE any money. But the fact is we don't need more revenue, we need less spending. Part of my reason for wanting lower taxes for the rich is so the government reigns itself in.
No, less spending deflects the problem. I argued earlier and will argue again, the debt crisis in the States is so great that both are necessary, spending cuts and raised taxes.
But even if your government did have spending under control and balancing budgets (like our Liberal government before the economy tanked), government will still cost money. Sure, if we cut spending, it will cost less, but it will still cost something. I'm glad you are a statist and at least agree that taxation is at least somewhat necessary. That's at least some common ground. Where we will probably disagree is how much the government should be involved.
But let's assume the government has cut down all the bloated programs and turned it into something really minimalistic like you would want. The government would still cost money. (I assume you haven't cut out law enforcement and the military.) I would still argue for a progressive tax system. And that's because there's not much money to take from the poor, if they have a tax break they'll spend it very quickly, keeping the money in circulation, the rich can afford to be taxed more without effecting their standard of living or their status as wealthy.
I can only think you are shoving burden of proof on us because it hasn't been implemented yet on the States aka you have the default position. However, Canada actually has a progressive tax system, so switching to your flat tax would also be moving away from the default position. See the thing is, I don't even see it through the lense of fairness or unfairness. If I did, the unfairness I would see is that with a flat tax, we're taking even more money from the poverty stricken and decreasing their quality of living in absolute terms. I just don't see why taxes ought to be fair except for the sake of being fair and to me that's not an issue when it comes to taxes. A greater issue to me is whether the poor can actually bear the burden as they are the ones most effected in actual quality of living when taxes go up on them. And is it actually worth breaking their backs over a couple pennies because we want to be 'fair'? So then why should I value fairness over that? Because it's fair? So what?
|
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576580800735800830.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
In 2008, the last year for which such data are available, the IRS reports that those who made more than $1 million in adjusted gross income paid an average income tax rate of 23.3%.
That's slightly lower than the 24.1% rate paid by those making between $500,000 and $1 million, probably because the richest are like Mr. Buffett and earn more from capital gains and dividends. The rate for a relative handful of the rich—400 people—fell to 18%, the modern equivalent of Barr's Gang of 21. But nearly all millionaires still paid a rate that is more than twice the 8.9% average rate paid by those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, and more than three times the 7.2% average rate paid by those earning less than $50,000. The larger point is that the claim that CEOs are routinely paying lower tax rates than their secretaries is Omaha hokum.
Interesting information.
Basically, stop using morality to argue your position. Use real arguments based on economics
Moral and economic arguments are equally valid on matters of public policy...
Third, youre basing your judgment about rich people and charity on flat amounts and youre disregarding cost of living. Yes, rich people might give away a lot of money to charity, but usually even those large amounts are only fractions of percentages of their total net worth. There are plenty of charitable middle-class citizens who not only give a higher percentage of their net worth as donations but also might be cutting into necessities to do so. You cant say "Mr. X is better than Mr. Y because he gave $100K to charity while Mr. Y only gave $10" when Mr. Y is cutting into his mortgage payments to do so while Mr. X is cutting into his savings account for a new yacht.
100,000 dollars helps far more people with far greater impact than 10 dollars.
Mr. X is not better than Mr. Y, but he certainly does more good. Which is a rather critical point that a lot of people seem to miss...
The problem seems to be that no one really wants to give Mr. X credit for his $100k donation; instead, he's the problem for being "too" rich.
|
On September 20 2011 10:42 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 10:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 10:17 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 10:05 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff. Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad. The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument. Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute. The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything. No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic. No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people. When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education. you completely flipped what I said.. I said taxes AREN'T immoral. The only thing I'm trying to argue against in this thread is the disparity between the rich's share and the poor/middle class's share. And to clarify, I don't believe the poor/middle class should pay more, I think the rich should pay less and we should spend less. your last 2 paragraphs truly showcase your ignorance. Everything comes down to careful calculations and RISK. It's not like blackjack, but it is like poker. And, like I said, you can do better in poker if you have a big stack.. but you have to USE IT WELL. It doesn't just accumulate chips on its own. Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars isn't nothing. If it were, he wouldn't be Warren Buffet. He'd be the old guy that sits on his porch and yells at neighborhood cats... that aren't even there. I was just positing that taxes were immoral, to argue that the moral argument is ridiculous in the first place. Again, I don't really care because I'm talking economics, not morality. Er. But I never said he didn't have to use it well. I simply said it was much easier for him to make way more money. I never said money generates more money magically. And yes, Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars IS nothing. He gives away BILLIONS of dollars in charities yearly. Risking 1 million is nothing to him. Hell, Warren Buffett even agrees with me! But you're not even talking sound economics. We don't HAVE to spend as much as we do. And I said way back like 2 hours ago that of course it's easier to make the second million than the first, but there's an additional level of risk that you didn't have in making the first million. Something you never acknowledge. What is unsound in my economics? What do you want to cut? I'm not saying the government isn't bloated, but there are a lot of jobs in the government right now. Making too large cuts means there's a lot of people that are suddenly unemployed. I mean FFS Warren Buffett agrees with me and he knows a hell of a lot more about economics than both of us. There's no risk in making the first million? Where the bloody hell did you get that from? You go and try make $1 million dollars without risking anything. I do not acknowledge the risk because the level of wealth we are talking about is people who can easily afford it anyway. It's not as big a risk to them. Also, I don't really see how the risk alters my point in any way. You're exhibiting a pretty common economic fallacy. It's called the unseen. The jobs that would be "lost" if you cut government spending, would be made up in the private sector due to the decrease in taxes. And given the government's inefficiency, the jobs would likely produce more WEALTH. When I refer to wealth, I'm talking about taking some crude material/idea and refining it into something better. That's the only way for people, as a whole, to become more wealthy. The only time you have a net loss in a job is if something is destroyed.
That completely depends on what you're cutting and the specifics of the tax breaks. And that is also a massive macroeconomic risk no matter how you slice it.
Anyway, my point was on the progressive tax system and the taxes on the wealthy. You didn't respond that part of it, so I assume I win!  PPPP
|
On September 20 2011 10:42 Holophonist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 10:28 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 10:17 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 10:12 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 10:05 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 09:47 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:35 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:27 DoubleReed wrote:On September 20 2011 08:18 Holophonist wrote:On September 20 2011 08:11 DoubleReed wrote:
You care about morality even if the economy goes to shit and nobody makes any money whatsoever? The government doesn't function and everything sucks? Please. The reason you're arguing with me is that you disagree that it is good economics, not morality. If you're making bad economic decisions because of morality then I think you don't understand that good economics can help everyone and give everyone a better standard of living.
Okay, rich person puts it into a bank so a poor person can get a mortgage. Or a poor person has the money and doesn't need a mortgage. Which do you think is more efficient? And efficiency is literally all that matters, because as you said, all money is spent.
I never said money makes money on its own. I said it's EASIER for the rich to become richer. It can be difficult next to impossible for the impoverished to make $1 million, but if you already have a billion dollars, then it's not that difficult to make $1 million. That's what I'm saying. That is the extent of what I'm saying. Do you agree? Well I happen to believe you can have a functioning economy while not violating any moral standards. But my tendency would be towards true fairness. Simply because humans are way too flawed to truly be able to pick and choose who gets what. The simplest, most fair way to do things is to remove the government as much as possible while still maintaining a STRICT rule of law. It's NOT just about your idea of what "efficiency" is. The world can't run on convenient stores, dude. Here's an example, should we put every cent in the country into the hands of the "poor" so they can spend it on the so-called "efficient" sectors of the economy? No? Ok, then how much? It's a sliding scale, and you're not qualified to decide where what money goes. Yes it's easier to make $1 million dollars if you already have $1 billion. What you can't grasp is that it's easier to lose $1 billion if you already have $1 billion. Okay, so I don't really see how that is violating moral standards. Hell, taxation in general violates the moral standard of "keep what you earn." THAT is a sliding scale and you're certainly not qualified to decide to make. Like I don't think you understand that "true fairness" can totally fucking suck for everybody. Convenient stores? Who said anything about convenient stores? What the hell are you talking about? I'm talking about small businesses and mortgages just like you are. It sounds like you're just making generalizations about poor people, and it really doesn't help your argument at all. I don't understand your second paragraph. I'm not suggesting anything close to socialism here. I don't know why you are acting like I'm being extreme. Almost any economist would agree that the most efficient sectors of the economy is the middle class, and the status of the middle class is hugely indicative of where the economy will go. If the middle class is horribly in debt (like they are now) then finding ways to inject capital into it will benefit the economy immensely. The last statement is blatantly nonsensical so I have no idea what you're talking about. No. Taxation doesn't violate the idea of keeping what you earn. Because we do recieve quite a bit of services from the government. Where it becomes particularly (and blatantly) immoral is where you take a larger percentage from somebody simply because they can afford it. Like I said before, there's no evidence that the rich use up more of the government services. In fact, they almost certainly use quite a bit less. A convenient store is a small business. The point is you're basically implying (even if you don't mean to) that giving ALL of the money in the US to the low/middle class would be the best thing to do. It ain't. The last statement was purposely nonsensical to point out how nonsensical your concept of how money makes money is. I may be just about done replying to you now because you're saying some pretty dumb stuff. Really? I oppose the military in afghanistan. Do you think it's morally fair to take MY money and spend it on things I don't want or use? I don't have a car. I don't want my money spent on highways. Seriously, you can come up with very good moral arguments against almost everything government does, good or bad. The rich have excess wealth. Literally. That's why they donate it to organizations. I have absolutely nothing against rich people. But if you think taking 1 million out of Warren Buffett's checkbook means he's going to fire someone compared to giving 200k to five small businesses then you're just delusional. Like are you arguing against small businesses? What a silly argument. Seriously, Taking 1.5 Billion Dollars away from Warren Buffett does not affect his livelihood one bit. I know this because he donates in amounts like that. Take 1.5 Billion away from the lower class, and you've just made thousands of people completely and entirely destitute. The fact is, if the economy tanks then we all suffer. The rich suffer AND the poor suffer. So when you talk about morality, you have to talk good economics. No one will "keep what they earn" because no one will earn anything. No, I'm not implying we give all our money to low/middle class. I have no idea where you get that from what I'm saying. What are you talking about? My arguments are not hyperbolic. No, the 1 billion thing is just a dumb statement. The stock market is not the lottery and its not blackjack. You do not need to risk 5 million to make 5 million. Yes, it has risks, but it is not gambling. To Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars is absolutely nothing. He could risk 100 million, make %1 on that (which is a shitty return btw), and he would make more than 95% of the American people. When you have money, it is much easier to make money. Saying otherwise is ridiculous, especially when you factor in things like education. you completely flipped what I said.. I said taxes AREN'T immoral. The only thing I'm trying to argue against in this thread is the disparity between the rich's share and the poor/middle class's share. And to clarify, I don't believe the poor/middle class should pay more, I think the rich should pay less and we should spend less. your last 2 paragraphs truly showcase your ignorance. Everything comes down to careful calculations and RISK. It's not like blackjack, but it is like poker. And, like I said, you can do better in poker if you have a big stack.. but you have to USE IT WELL. It doesn't just accumulate chips on its own. Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars isn't nothing. If it were, he wouldn't be Warren Buffet. He'd be the old guy that sits on his porch and yells at neighborhood cats... that aren't even there. I was just positing that taxes were immoral, to argue that the moral argument is ridiculous in the first place. Again, I don't really care because I'm talking economics, not morality. Er. But I never said he didn't have to use it well. I simply said it was much easier for him to make way more money. I never said money generates more money magically. And yes, Warren Buffett risking 1 million dollars IS nothing. He gives away BILLIONS of dollars in charities yearly. Risking 1 million is nothing to him. Hell, Warren Buffett even agrees with me! But you're not even talking sound economics. We don't HAVE to spend as much as we do. And I said way back like 2 hours ago that of course it's easier to make the second million than the first, but there's an additional level of risk that you didn't have in making the first million. Something you never acknowledge. What is unsound in my economics? What do you want to cut? I'm not saying the government isn't bloated, but there are a lot of jobs in the government right now. Making too large cuts means there's a lot of people that are suddenly unemployed. I mean FFS Warren Buffett agrees with me and he knows a hell of a lot more about economics than both of us. There's no risk in making the first million? Where the bloody hell did you get that from? You go and try make $1 million dollars without risking anything. I do not acknowledge the risk because the level of wealth we are talking about is people who can easily afford it anyway. It's not as big a risk to them. Also, I don't really see how the risk alters my point in any way. You're exhibiting a pretty common economic fallacy. It's called the unseen. The jobs that would be "lost" if you cut government spending, would be made up in the private sector due to the decrease in taxes. And given the government's inefficiency, the jobs would likely produce more WEALTH. When I refer to wealth, I'm talking about taking some crude material/idea and refining it into something better. That's the only way for people, as a whole, to become more wealthy. The only time you have a net loss in a job is if something is destroyed.
You cant assume that corporations will automatically hire more based on a decrease in corporate income tax rates. Even in this recession, many corporations have been making record profits and are still not hiring as before the recession. Many people make the assumption that less taxes --> less expenses --> hire more.
Companies hire people either when they need to fill a vacant spot or when they feel like expanding. Sure, having less expenses helps when it comes to the decision to expand their operations, but more importantly they need the demand for their products or services to warrant expansion. Theres no reason to hire more people based on less tax expenses when there arent any more people to buy your products. However, even if taxes are high there will be good reason to hire more people if you arent producing enough products to meet the demand of the consumers or if you see new markets where people will buy your products.
Obviously, Im not saying tax rates have no bearing on jobs. What Im saying is that its not nearly as simple as less corporate taxes --> more hires.
Also, youre generalizing government spending as a giant money sink as if none of it enters our economy. The New Deal that FDR implemented to combat the Great Depression was a huge government spending program. Some people argue that it wasnt the New Deal that got us out of the depression, but rather entering WW2. Well, what do you think the government did support the war? They spent a ton of money on it, which also put people to work. People generalize and demonize government spending too much. Im all for keeping government spending manageable, but people really need to stop making judgments out of knee jerk reactions
|
On September 20 2011 10:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:
100,000 dollars helps far more people with far greater impact than 10 dollars.
Mr. X is not better than Mr. Y, but he certainly does more good. Which is a rather critical point that a lot of people seem to miss...
The problem seems to be that no one really wants to give Mr. X credit for his $100k donation; instead, he's the problem for being "too" rich.
I completely agree with you.
However, I was using that example to address the argument on a moral basis. Mr. X might be more helpful in a real sense, but he is not necessarily better than Mr. Y in a moral sense. The whole point of my posts have been to discourage bringing morality into this discussion and focus on the real consequences
|
Tax the rich.
Top 1% get 20+% of total income, most in 80 yrs, w/ lowest tax rates in 50 yrs. Rest of America losing jobs & wages.
Tax cuts = more jobs is an economic fairy tale that the wealthy wants everyone to believe. Thank you Prophet Reagan for our current problems.
|
On September 20 2011 03:02 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:53 Craze wrote:
And the government allows you to donate to charity and write it off because they believe it is a good use of your money. How can you be so blindly zealous to a cause that you attack a man for giving away his money to people in need?
Warren Buffet is happy to pay more taxes while he lives, but he wants his wealth to go to the Gates foundation so that it can be used to further human development worldwide when he dies. He's a noble guy, and you attack him for it. I'm not attacking him for donating. I'm attacking him for his bullshit hypocritical statements.
Did you even read the article? Do you even understand what hypocrisy is? Because I'm pretty sure he says quite plainly "I pay a lower percentage in taxes than my secretary."
An example of a bullshit hypocritical statement would be if he was going to donate his estate to charity and then went and said "I think we should all have a gentleman's agreement to not use loopholes and creative accounting to lower our tax bills because it's the right thing to do.."
What Buffett actually said was that the wealthy are given too many breaks and that he thinks that they (including himself) should be made (not volunteer) to pay more. There is no hypocrisy, what he does with his estate is immaterial to the actual discussion. It's just a bs diversion tactic.
|
government is so inefficient then why bother?
Whats with this so called wording that government creates inefficient jobs? Government jobs are service jobs they aren't meant to compete, often they are contracted as such that they cannot and are not allowed to compete. So this is like telling a person to shoot themselves in the foot then then asking why are they limping.
I never understood how taking home more money at the end of the year means you create jobs. If i own a business and i'm allowed for the most part to set my own wage the more i pay myself the more i take out of the business, which could have gone to expansion, raising worker wages or raising the number of workers.
Am i to believe that they take home more money at the end of the year to invest in other business why not invest more into your own and take home less? And you aren't job creators if you're just investors you didn't create the job, you just footed the initial bills in order to suck the life outta the company later along the line, sort of doing a favor in order to ask for a larger favor later on. Which wouldn't be necessary if the line between how much you made and the person interested in the investment made was closer together as the size of the initial investment would be needed in a lesser capacity.
all economic activity spurs jobs in some obscure way not just investments; sort of like playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon between spending money and a job being created or supported in some way.
The more wealth you have the less likely you are to spend your money as you obtain more ie the desire to spend is less because you have shit you don't really need to have more of it. The US runs on a consumer based economy so investors do less for the economy then those wanting stuff and buying shit in that sense, as the goal is to obtain things though goods and services not obtain money by putting down money. In the goods and services model money is not generated back to the seeker of goods and services so the money proliferates, in the investment model more money is expected to come back to the seeker of potential investment opportunities and so money goes horded leaving less for the rest =p
|
This debate cannot be won. However I do believe that giving money is not always a good thing. When I donate, I donate time instead of money (doing things like volunteering). While this may sound elitist, people need to learn that life isn't full of handouts sometime. The government cannot hold your hand your whole life. In the US we are fortunate enough that even the poor can become rich. People in 3rd world countries know what true poverty is, they don't even really have the chance to become rich. People in the US need to stop crying and realize how fortunate they are and how lucky it is that they were born here. Take responsibility for your life. Give it everything you have. And sometimes, at the end of the day, rich and poor are just luck and no force can determine that.
|
Just curious for the people who argue that progressive taxing is taking from someone to give to another:
Doesn't the same thing happen every day in business? Jobs and benefits are cut routinely for the sake of the shareholder. Just for example, I work an entry level job in IT. Just a few years ago, it was a permanent position complete with benefits. Now? They hire through temp agencies with zero benefits because the primary client (a Fortune 100 company) wants to constantly lower their IT costs. I ask you, where is that money being redistributed to? if someone has their health benefits cut or completely taken away for the sake of share price, isn't that redistribution of wealth too? Isn't that the money of poorer people being taken away and given to the largely wealthier shareholder? This sort of erosion is happening everywhere in the country. That's why I'm unmoved by the property arguments.
|
On September 20 2011 09:51 oldgregg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing he'd be better if the republicans didn't try to undermine him on every single issue
Yeah I agree. We should just trust Obama completely without challenging his policies and without question.....
I mean, that's what freedom and democracy is all about right? Blind followership of 1 man?
Edit: In fact, I propose that we lobby congress to eliminate term limits for the President so that we can continue to flourish and prosper under Obama's omnipotency indefinitely.
|
On September 20 2011 11:49 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:51 oldgregg wrote:On September 20 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing he'd be better if the republicans didn't try to undermine him on every single issue Yeah I agree. We should just trust Obama completely without challenging his policies and without question..... I mean, that's what freedom and democracy is all about right? Blind followership of 1 man?
The president used to hold such a position if you were going to challenge him you did so with cogent arguments in a polite manner, you didn't do so by grandstanding and raving like a lunatic until you got your way you respected him as a leader. You can challenge authority but it's how you go about it. I could say you're wrong about a subject manner and here is why and this is what i think, or i could say all that then hear what you think then call you wrong wrong wrong and just keep saying what i think until you tire out and you say fuck it you spoiled bitch fine ill buy the blue power ranger.
|
On September 20 2011 11:38 thebigdonkey wrote:
Just curious for the people who argue that progressive taxing is taking from someone to give to another:
Doesn't the same thing happen every day in business? Jobs and benefits are cut routinely for the sake of the shareholder. Just for example, I work an entry level job in IT. Just a few years ago, it was a permanent position complete with benefits. Now? They hire through temp agencies with zero benefits because the primary client (a Fortune 100 company) wants to constantly lower their IT costs. I ask you, where is that money being redistributed to? if someone has their health benefits cut or completely taken away for the sake of share price, isn't that redistribution of wealth too? Isn't that the money of poorer people being taken away and given to the largely wealthier shareholder? This sort of erosion is happening everywhere in the country. That's why I'm unmoved by the property arguments.
Sure. The difference is we the people have the freedom of choice to take our business elsewhere when we disagree with their business practices. You have the option to go and work somewhere else if you feel you are being treated unfairly. You also have the freedom to sue your employer if your rights as an American are being infringed upon.
What about when it is the government redistributing wealth? Can we take our business elsewhere and refuse to pay taxes? Sure, if you like 3 hots and a cot bunking with Warren Jeffs 365. As a matter of law, we are required to pay taxes. If you don't like government's business practices (aka policies) you don't get to opt out of doing business with them. This is the reason why your argument of Corporate redistribution is wrong. It's wrong, just like your OP, and only offers misinformation and biased opinion.
Edit: It is unfortunate that your entry level IT job was reduced to temp status with no benefits. I can't help but wonder though, would you pay someone $100 to mow your lawn if you could get the same services for $50? Does it make you evil and oppressive if you choose to pay less money for the same thing? Perhaps the man charging $100 believes it is his god given right to earn $100 for mowing your lawn. He might even call you greedy for choosing to go with a cheaper service provider. Obviously only a crazy man would react that way though, right?
|
On September 20 2011 11:58 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 11:49 Joedaddy wrote:On September 20 2011 09:51 oldgregg wrote:On September 20 2011 09:45 Kiarip wrote:
obama needs to stop making bills. he's so bad at this presidency thing he'd be better if the republicans didn't try to undermine him on every single issue Yeah I agree. We should just trust Obama completely without challenging his policies and without question..... I mean, that's what freedom and democracy is all about right? Blind followership of 1 man? The president used to hold such a position if you were going to challenge him you did so with cogent arguments in a polite manner, you didn't do so by grandstanding and raving like a lunatic until you got your way you respected him as a leader. You can challenge authority but it's how you go about it. I could say you're wrong about a subject manner and here is why and this is what i think, or i could say all that then hear what you think then call you wrong wrong wrong and just keep saying what i think until you tire out and you say fuck it you spoiled bitch fine ill buy the blue power ranger.
I'm not trying to be rude. I want to respond to your response, but I am having a hard time understanding your post. I am not sure that I can de-cypher what you are trying to say. Please edit for punctuation and clarity so that I may give a proper response.
|
On September 20 2011 10:42 Holophonist wrote:
You're exhibiting a pretty common economic fallacy. It's called the unseen. The jobs that would be "lost" if you cut government spending, would be made up in the private sector due to the decrease in taxes. And given the government's inefficiency, the jobs would likely produce more WEALTH. When I refer to wealth, I'm talking about taking some crude material/idea and refining it into something better. That's the only way for people, as a whole, to become more wealthy. The only time you have a net loss in a job is if something is destroyed.
In principle I would agree, the private sector is generally better at allocating resources. However you are also exhibiting a fallacy that cutting government spending at any time is always ideal with job growth. I think that is oversimplifying things. You can't bucket all "government spending". TARP was government spending, and bailing out the banks is government spending, without which there is a good chance that unemployment and GDP growth would be significantly worse than they are for both the short and long term.
|
On September 20 2011 11:12 Sprouter wrote:Tax the rich. Show nested quote +Top 1% get 20+% of total income, most in 80 yrs, w/ lowest tax rates in 50 yrs. Rest of America losing jobs & wages. Tax cuts = more jobs is an economic fairy tale that the wealthy wants everyone to believe. Thank you Prophet Reagan for our current problems.
Taxes were actually higher under Reagan. Just sayin. But yeah, he did help with that notion of "lower taxes on rich will create more jobs!" And on one of the first pages someone pointed out that the high time of America's economy was in the 80s-00s which is mostly attributed to the weakening and collapse of the Soviet Union. When we had no real competition anymore. It had little or nothing to do with Republicans or Democrats and more to do with America being in the right place at the right time. Pretty much the same situation as after WWII when most countries were completely fucked over.
Taxes are incredibly low in America compared to the rest of the world. I think the best thing we could do for our budget by far is lowering defense spending. It's way too high for a country that isn't even in danger of being invaded or attacked by a foreign country. $689 billion, or 20% of our budget, is pretty ridiculous.
Pretty much if we want to keep the budget exactly how it is we need to raise taxes on everyone. Or we need to make cuts. Or both.
|
On September 20 2011 12:03 Joedaddy wrote:
Sure. The difference is we the people have the freedom of choice to take our business elsewhere when we disagree with their business practices. You have the option to go and work somewhere else if you feel you are being treated unfairly. You also have the freedom to sue your employer if your rights as an American are being infringed upon.
.
Many times my friend you don't have the option to just get up and walk away. Maybe you were raised in a family with endless supply of money, or maybe you were just born at the right time. Maybe you are a top 1% human who knows, but i do know countless of we the people who do not have the freedom of choice to take our business elsewhere when we disagree because we are still enslaved by our outrageous debts and any miss step in that field will ruin your chance at any greatness.
|
On September 20 2011 12:22 reddog1999 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 12:03 Joedaddy wrote:
Sure. The difference is we the people have the freedom of choice to take our business elsewhere when we disagree with their business practices. You have the option to go and work somewhere else if you feel you are being treated unfairly. You also have the freedom to sue your employer if your rights as an American are being infringed upon.
. Many times my friend you don't have the option to just get up and walk away. Maybe you were raised in a family with endless supply of money, or maybe you were just born at the right time. Maybe you are a top 1% human who knows, but i do know countless of we the people who do not have the freedom of choice to take our business elsewhere when we disagree because we are still enslaved by our outrageous debts and any miss step in that field will ruin your chance at any greatness.
Yes. If you incur debt and make poor life decisions your ability to move freely is reduced. It's not against the law to stop doing business with a company though. It is against the law to stop paying your taxes. Do you see the fundamental differences here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
