|
On September 22 2011 05:01 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:52 Bibdy wrote:
I'd really like an itemized list of these loopholes and inconceivably bad tax breaks that are so blatantly hemorrhaging money that it's a crime against humanity to let them continue, so I can actually be informed about the situation, rather than sit here listening to two people bicker over the supposed detriment of this blanket 'loopholes/tax breaks' term. It's pretty hard to enumerate them when the IRS code is 20000+ pages. For a simple sample you can see the ones that Obama wants to try to close for the Oil/Gas/Coal industries in his 10-year plan (tax increase/budget cut proposal) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf
This is actually a place where I completely agree with some on the right are saying: fix the tax code. That thing is incredibly long, and as Fareed Zakaria puts it, a bunch of loopholes for businesses and things that favor a lot of special interests. I don't see a lot of liberals talking about this, and when the right brings up I always say "yeah that's totally reasonable."
I don't know how exactly we might fix the code (not too in favor of a flat tax), but yeah.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 22 2011 05:11 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Well, the main problem with the State, and especially your State is when their is collusion with private interest.
That's corruption, but that's also what lobbies are about, etc...
That you can fight against.
Now, obviously, no government is perfect. Obviously, even the most democratic States have flaws because they are run by people and that people are never perfect.
That being said, the principle of a democratic State is the interest of everybody. The principle of a corporation or a hedge fund or whatever, is the interest of its owner.
I don't think the State is the solution to everything, and many evil can come from too much state. I am just astonished that some people seem to consider that the State is inherently evil, without taking into consideration the fact that maybe private interest can be a source of tyranny, of oppression, and of slavery.
If I go to the hospital, I prefer to know that the hospital belongs to the whole nation and that its purpose is to cure anybody the best way possible, rather than thinking that the hospital is owe by some shareholders who don't give a flying fuck about anything if not their return on investment.
I've been to a public school, and it was fantastic. And my parents didn't pay anything. And my musical education was free also, and I am a professional musician. And all my life I have been having excellent healthcare that I never paid for. And I think it's an amazing thing that everybody in France can have the chance of having a great education, to go to a conservatoire, or to get himself cured regardless of his income.
Yes, it was all "free." You never "paid" for it.
The State has historically been a combination of justice and domination. It is wholly beneficial insofar as it is upholding justice. Domination in its most blatant form could be rape, pillage, executions, etc. A little bit milder for of domination is taxation. Modern civilization has given us the patron State where the government provides services and tells you what to do. It's softer, kinder, but still domination and can easily veer off into tyranny.
|
Yes, it was all "free." You never "paid" for it.
I like how he thinks his parents didn't pay for it.
The State has historically been a combination of justice and domination. It is wholly beneficial insofar as it is upholding justice. Domination in its most blatant form could be rape, pillage, executions, etc. A little bit milder for of domination is taxation. Modern civilization has given us the patron State where the government provides services and tells you what to do. It's softer, kinder, but still domination and can easily veer off into tyranny.
Unfortunately in our current democracy - and this is a phenomenon that existed before but metastasized to epic proportions in the 20th century - what you have is a million different special interest groups advocating anything and everything you can imagine under the sun, all trying to maneuver the levers of government to carve out their own little fiefdoms of money and power.
|
On September 22 2011 04:26 MattyClutch wrote:
I would imagine the slant you get depends on the color your state votes. That said, I don't think children are mindless idiots so I don't worry about it as much. They can go to the library or get on the internet and make up their own mind.
Yeah, I TOTALLY remember double checking the shit I was taught in high school by going to the library and searching the internet. Oh, wait, I spent my free time in sports, working, or pissing around with my friends. Isn't that pretty much true of every high school student ? Who goes independent study in the library for the "whole story", upon which they can make up their mind, then go correct their teacher. lol.
|
United States5162 Posts
On September 22 2011 05:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:26 MattyClutch wrote:
I would imagine the slant you get depends on the color your state votes. That said, I don't think children are mindless idiots so I don't worry about it as much. They can go to the library or get on the internet and make up their own mind. Yeah, I TOTALLY remember double checking the shit I was taught in high school by going to the library and searching the internet. Oh, wait, I spent my free time in sports, working, or pissing around with my friends. Isn't that pretty much true of every high school student ? Who goes independent study in the library for the "whole story", upon which they can make up their mind, then go correct their teacher. lol.
The fact that most of American kids could give a shit about school is a reflection on view on education as a society, not that public education is a failure. So even if schools were trying to indoctrinate kids, the kids aren't listening.
|
On September 22 2011 05:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:26 MattyClutch wrote:
I would imagine the slant you get depends on the color your state votes. That said, I don't think children are mindless idiots so I don't worry about it as much. They can go to the library or get on the internet and make up their own mind. Yeah, I TOTALLY remember double checking the shit I was taught in high school by going to the library and searching the internet. Oh, wait, I spent my free time in sports, working, or pissing around with my friends. Isn't that pretty much true of every high school student ? Who goes independent study in the library for the "whole story", upon which they can make up their mind, then go correct their teacher. lol.
I read alternate history books and other things. I guess we just have different interests. It isn't a time issue at any rate. I played on my HS rugby team, worked enough to have gas and a bit of spending money for the weekends, and goofed around with my friends. Still had time to read a bit. It isn't like you sit down every night go "Im going to research everything I learned today - THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE.".
Over the course of your live you read, hear, and watch a lot of things and can generally make up your own mind. I mean if you hear two things that don't mesh up don't you want to figure out which one is untrue?
EDIT: I would also add that unless things changed greatly since I was in high school, adult authority figures are terrible indoctrinators. Kids generally want to do the opposite of whatever they say.
|
I'd tried to follow all these tangents, though to my self and said fuck it here is my opinion, but the fact of the manner is that we have something like a billion and a half budget short fall. Now who wants to cut a billion dollars worth of programs and shit, no one it's political suicide for the most part as you'd piss off everyone with cuts like that as you'd have to eliminate so much you'd hit everyone. That being said, we do need to raise revenue in some manner, now who can afford such an endeavorer? The ones with all the wealth, large multi million dollar corporations and persons. It's a time for sacrifice and who has done the most sacrifice during these years of war, not the wealthy hell people betting on the collapse of the housing market made millions if not billions off other people's suffering, something that should be considered criminal and yet these same groups ar the ones we want to give more deregulation and tax breaks to? What happened when we started the wars did we raise revenue to fund it? No we cut revenue and passed it on to a later time all while expanding government during a time of prosperity. Does raising taxes stagnate an economy, yes and no it really depends on where the taxes are but more often then not they do not hurt an economy.Tax cuts only increase the budget short fall it's been proven time and time again that it does not bring more money into the government coffers, it barely links to economic growth as most economists worth their salt would suggest so under the current US economic climate. Can we have cuts? Yes but to what? End the wars that would cuts the defense budget, we could reform social insurances such as raising the retirement age we could cut mediacare benefits and adjust things so to promote the use of generics etc what are the specifics i don't know zeesh i'm not in congress which should be coming up with this shit.
|
|
|
I was thinking Howard Zinn, but in comparison he might be too dry and rambly 
|
I just said Turtledove because he's such a book machine that it's most likely he's the alt-history author someone is talking about when they don't give a name.
I guess I coulda gone for even more nerd cred and said Asimov...
|
On September 22 2011 04:15 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +
And regulation? What? Glass-Steagal was repealed (largely because lobbying by major banks) and the deregulation following definitely played a role in getting. So if you mean a lack of regulation, sure. And of course, there are excessive regulations in some areas of the economy, but regulating banks in this way was not one of them. Additionally, there have been other roll backs in regulation.
well the housing crisis was caused by the creation of Freddie Mac, and Fannie May and the really low interest rates... the Glass-Steagal didn't have to be there for banks to not do stupid loans. The problem is Freddie and Fannie were buying out all the repackaged mortgages with a blank check from the government. That obviously hedges the risks on giving mortgages because it guarantees that banks can't really lose money, and that in turn guarantees that houses will keep getting bought, and that in turn guarantees that housing prices will keep going up, and that in turn makes it a good idea to lend the money to people to buy houses who can't afford it... of course once the rates on the mortgages reset, everything collapsed... But banks aren't idiots giving a loan to someone places the risk on the person that gives the money not the person that has to pay the interest... banks would never have made such risky loans if the government didn't force them to compete in who can take more risk faster.
Umm wtf...you're seriously going to blame the housing crisis on the government? Granted, they weren't entirely blameless but 100% to blame?
Fannie and Freddie were not "buying out all the repackaged mortgages". They were the ones issuing the mortgages that people were packaging. They got boned because the market for those mortgages dried up and they got stuck holding a bunch of bad loans (as did Countrywide and most every other bank in the country). EVERYONE was buying all the repackaged mortgages. Institutional investors everywhere were gorging themselves on what they thought was riskless money. The only ones that came out ahead were the ones who caught wind of the rotten tranches of the CDOs everyone was selling. Deutsche, Goldman, and a few hedge funds were pretty much the only ones smart enough to figure it out and buy credit default swaps on those tranches (which is what put AIG out of business for all practical purposes).
Blaming the government for the banks' greed is like blaming McDonalds for obesity. It's absurd. On the one hand, you're saying regulation is unnecessary because the market can handle itself, but on the other hand, you're saying the banks are too fucking stupid and helpless to stop eating the big macs when they can't see their feet anymore. Can you not see the contradiction there?
|
On September 22 2011 05:23 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 05:01 TanGeng wrote:On September 22 2011 04:52 Bibdy wrote:
I'd really like an itemized list of these loopholes and inconceivably bad tax breaks that are so blatantly hemorrhaging money that it's a crime against humanity to let them continue, so I can actually be informed about the situation, rather than sit here listening to two people bicker over the supposed detriment of this blanket 'loopholes/tax breaks' term. It's pretty hard to enumerate them when the IRS code is 20000+ pages. For a simple sample you can see the ones that Obama wants to try to close for the Oil/Gas/Coal industries in his 10-year plan (tax increase/budget cut proposal) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/jointcommitteereport.pdf This is actually a place where I completely agree with some on the right are saying: fix the tax code. That thing is incredibly long, and as Fareed Zakaria puts it, a bunch of loopholes for businesses and things that favor a lot of special interests. I don't see a lot of liberals talking about this, and when the right brings up I always say "yeah that's totally reasonable." I don't know how exactly we might fix the code (not too in favor of a flat tax), but yeah.
That's one of those funny disconnects between regular people and politicians. "Fix the tax code" can mean a lot of things, such as removing all those loopholes that let so many rich people and corporations get away with paying little or nothing. This is something that most people agree with, democrats and republicans; it seems like common sense, but it's anathema to republicans in congress. I would be all for simplifying the tax code to function properly, perhaps even if that meant a flat tax but I don't know how the numbers crunch out on that. But even keeping the progressive tax, which is more popular as far as I know, certainly it can and should be much much much simpler. That shouldn't be debatable. I hear democrats advocating the former and some republicans advocating the latter, and most Americans support ideas like those. Unfortunately the policy makers just talk past each other. Taxes should be as simple as possible, and they should apply to everyone. Is anyone in favor of GE paying zero taxes? Sure, from a libertarian point of view you might say everybody should pay zero taxes, and that's a lofty goal - but I pay them, you pay them, why doesn't GE pay them?
|
but it's anathema to republicans in congress
im pretty sure thats not actually true, some of the lesser known tea party fire-eaters possibly. but i'm pretty sure that reforming the tax code to bring in more revenues without raising rates is something most of the GOP caucus is behind. even if they disagree with the democrats (of course) on just what kind of form reform should take.
unfortunately for the prospect of getting anything done before year after next, raising rates is a non-negotiable no for republicans and a non-negotiable yes for the president.
|
On September 22 2011 05:01 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:55 wakefield wrote:On September 22 2011 04:35 MattyClutch wrote:On SeptemberWhat? regulations aren't added out of actual necessity most of the time... they're added because politicians want to promise people stuff when they run for office, so they promise to regulate in the way that favors the majority (employees) the result? the employers don't want to higher anyone lol... talk about shit back-firing.
Other times regulations are added because of lobbyists when government picks winners and losers, provides government contracts which are super inefficient. Or when companies want to push their competition out with the help of the government... something the government should be powerless at helping them in. 22 2011 04:27 Kiarip wrote: That is why I asked specifics. People always say they want to cut regulation and I think a healthy dose of that would be good, but not the safety ones. Just look at history, business have done some nasty stuff in the name of a quick buck and people lacked the ability to go after them. FDA, EPA, OSHA etc stuff needs to stay in my opinion. On the taxes bit I think we both got swapped around, I am saying we had a good economy and higher taxes on the rich under Clinton. Regulations reduce the window for innovation, when the FDA was introduced there was a 50% fall in development. Also in real terms, to bypass the government regulations it has extended the time and increased the cost of development e.g (take inflation into account) it took 25 months to develop a drug and $1m; 20 years later with the FDA in play it costed $54m and 8 years on average. This would decrease the supply of this market sector, evidently. A better system would be to have private testing companies in place as a replacement for these government sectors which companies would pay to have them test the products in a competitive environment where their products/services would be scrutinised and therefore companies can broadcast that they have been tested against these standards. If not, then the action the consumer does will only affect the consumer in most cases. The government should be there to protect the third parties, not the choices of the consumer. Yes, but its a necessary evil in order for us to coexist as a functioning economy. I really wish we could run accurate simulations of what life would be like without various government-funded organizations around. Oh wait, we can just look at the past, when these organizations didn't exist. Man, life was great when our children were playing with lead paint, watches were filled with highly radioactive substances (just to make them glow in the dark) and companies were dumping radioactive material by the wayside because it was cheaper than safely putting it underground in a big block of concrete. I couldn't give a shit how much innovation and development it costs. I don't want to live in a society where my personal livelihood is destroyed because some assholes wanted to save some money. It's already bad enough with companies like Toyota installing cheap, faulty brake pads and BP purchasing improper safety equipment on oil rigs, all in the name of making short-term savings at the expense of risking long-term company survival. One ruined company later and we don't get back the lives that were lost.
the Constitution and free market protects you from those things. Obviously people are still gonna buy led paint before they realize just how poisonous led is, but education on this matter does not need to be done by the government, it can be done by a company that wants to find a niche in selling paint that's not poisonous.
You're saying it like all these things can't happen under the government regulations... they can and they do, the only difference is the government is picking winners and losers while robbing the people of their hard-earned money.
|
On September 22 2011 02:13 stk01001 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 01:18 cydial wrote:
You don't make the weak strong by taking strength from those that already have it. this might be the dumbest quote I've ever read in my life.
Don't expect freeloaders who haven't worked a day in their life to understand.
Instead of blaming the super rich why not do something constructive with your time?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 22 2011 05:34 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:26 MattyClutch wrote:
I would imagine the slant you get depends on the color your state votes. That said, I don't think children are mindless idiots so I don't worry about it as much. They can go to the library or get on the internet and make up their own mind. Yeah, I TOTALLY remember double checking the shit I was taught in high school by going to the library and searching the internet. Oh, wait, I spent my free time in sports, working, or pissing around with my friends. Isn't that pretty much true of every high school student ? Who goes independent study in the library for the "whole story", upon which they can make up their mind, then go correct their teacher. lol.
If only that were true, you know those idiot voters? Well guess what? Their kids are probably going to end up the same way.
|
On September 22 2011 06:27 DeepElemBlues wrote:im pretty sure thats not actually true, some of the lesser known tea party fire-eaters possibly. but i'm pretty sure that reforming the tax code to bring in more revenues without raising rates is something most of the GOP caucus is behind. even if they disagree with the democrats (of course) on just what kind of form reform should take. unfortunately for the prospect of getting anything done before year after next, raising rates is a non-negotiable no for republicans and a non-negotiable yes for the president.
I've seen them pretty unified against closing tax loopholes. As I recall, Boehner even walked out during the debt ceiling negotiaions over that issue, but I'm sure it's not quite so simple. Maybe it's the influence of the tea party, but I don't see congressional republicans agreeing in print or on television that we should close tax loopholes. They deflect the question and avoid the statement "yes tax loopholes are good", but the rhetoric is such that closing loopholes amounts to tax increases and they signed a pledge not to do that.
|
Everyone is equal under the law, if the ''super rich'' need to pay more taxes than the rest of the people, then you are basically saying ''hey, they are better than the rest''. Is it fair for everybody else, no, but if you start with taxes, what else will the '' better people'' have under the law that ''normal'' people can't have?
|
Everyone is equal under the law, if the ''super rich'' need to pay more taxes than the rest of the people, then you are basically saying ''hey, they are better than the rest''. Is it fair for everybody else, no, but if you start with taxes, what else will the '' better people'' have under the law that ''normal'' people can't have?
That argument doesn't make any sense. By NOT taxing the rich, we're basically saying they're better people.
|
On September 22 2011 06:18 thebigdonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2011 04:15 Kiarip wrote:
And regulation? What? Glass-Steagal was repealed (largely because lobbying by major banks) and the deregulation following definitely played a role in getting. So if you mean a lack of regulation, sure. And of course, there are excessive regulations in some areas of the economy, but regulating banks in this way was not one of them. Additionally, there have been other roll backs in regulation.
well the housing crisis was caused by the creation of Freddie Mac, and Fannie May and the really low interest rates... the Glass-Steagal didn't have to be there for banks to not do stupid loans. The problem is Freddie and Fannie were buying out all the repackaged mortgages with a blank check from the government. That obviously hedges the risks on giving mortgages because it guarantees that banks can't really lose money, and that in turn guarantees that houses will keep getting bought, and that in turn guarantees that housing prices will keep going up, and that in turn makes it a good idea to lend the money to people to buy houses who can't afford it... of course once the rates on the mortgages reset, everything collapsed... But banks aren't idiots giving a loan to someone places the risk on the person that gives the money not the person that has to pay the interest... banks would never have made such risky loans if the government didn't force them to compete in who can take more risk faster. Umm wtf...you're seriously going to blame the housing crisis on the government? Granted, they weren't entirely blameless but 100% to blame? Fannie and Freddie were not "buying out all the repackaged mortgages". They were the ones issuing the mortgages that people were packaging. They got boned because the market for those mortgages dried up and they got stuck holding a bunch of bad loans (as did Countrywide and most every other bank in the country).
they were buying mortgages insuring them and reselling them.
EVERYONE was buying all the repackaged mortgages. Institutional investors everywhere were gorging themselves on what they thought was riskless money. The only ones that came out ahead were the ones who caught wind of the rotten tranches of the CDOs everyone was selling. Deutsche, Goldman, and a few hedge funds were pretty much the only ones smart enough to figure it out and buy credit default swaps on those tranches (which is what put AIG out of business for all practical purposes).
But who provided the opportunity of riskless money? the government. Because the GSE's were willing to buy the mortgages, it provided a safety net for the banks... of course like with all safety nets you need money to actually provide the safety so then the FED had to bail them out.
If the rates weren't artificially low, and most importantly Freddie and Fannie weren't these GSE's which were trying to keep the unsustainable market growth going the banks wouldn't have been making such risky mortgages...
Blaming the government for the banks' greed is like blaming McDonalds for obesity. It's absurd. On the one hand, you're saying regulation is unnecessary because the market can handle itself, but on the other hand, you're saying the banks are too fucking stupid and helpless to stop eating the big macs when they can't see their feet anymore. Can you not see the contradiction there?
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaat? no the banks aren't stupid. The Banks were FORCED to do what they did by the market that was distorted by the government. Even if the banks see it coming for the most part they're going to be losing customers if they don't lower their lending standards, until the crash actually happens. When the crash happens, yes those that provided the most riskiest mortgages are in trouble, but if they didn't do that they could have very well gone out of business well before the crash.
The problem is that the GSE's created an environment that seemed to hedge the Banks' risks because they could always insure their mortgages, because Freddie and Fannie guaranteed to buy them at some cost below market price. The hedged risks made it almost mandatory for banks to give out high-risk mortgages, and of course when the system begins to collapse, and it turns out that the GSE's don't actually have the money to buy all these mortgages, and are relying on the FED to bail them out everything breaks down.
That argument doesn't make any sense. By NOT taxing the rich, we're basically saying they're better people.
they get taxed 35% on salaries... how are we not taxing them?
I've seen them pretty unified against closing tax loopholes. As I recall, Boehner even walked out during the debt ceiling negotiaions over that issue, but I'm sure it's not quite so simple. Maybe it's the influence of the tea party, but I don't see congressional republicans agreeing in print or on television that we should close tax loopholes. They deflect the question and avoid the statement "yes tax loopholes are good", but the rhetoric is such that closing loopholes amounts to tax increases and they signed a pledge not to do that.
Democrats aren't for closing tax loop-holes either. Both sides just want to pick winners and losers with their new bills.
If the subsidies and corporate welfare were eliminated across the board (for everyone,) and a fair tax is introduced it would be harder to cheat the system. But of course with a fair tax it would be much harder for government to pass bigger budget plans and raise taxes if they have to raise them for everyone, because no one likes taxes. and that's why the government needs to be kept small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
