|
On October 06 2011 03:16 CurLy[] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 01:50 BlackFlag wrote:On October 06 2011 01:42 CurLy[] wrote:
Capitalism is a good system but the way it is being executed in America is just wrong. No it isn't, and that is the problem why the protesters can't form a coherent opinion. They criticize everything that is capitalism, without blaming capitalism, because "it's a good system". Cognitive dissonance. People are in shock because the negative sides of capitalism where, for a good 50 years, only felt by the third world, but now it hits home AND the middle-class. So they make up things about "corporate greed" and "evil banks" without recognizing the background of it and that it's the heart of the western capitalism system. I meant that loosely, okay its a pretty flawed system. Its a decent system, but its definitely got its problems. We need to end the repression of debate in the US over capitalism because saying anything bad about it instantly makes you a communist socialist nazi. The ignorance is what is killing us and the spin doctors over with main stream media aren't helping. Its impossible for those who actually do understand it to have intelligent discussions or bring up topics like this without being crucified in the public eye which is really a shame.
Especially in the USA, if the protesters would openly criticize capitalism (even without saying what they want instead) they would be crucified as communists which is a death sentence (debate-wise). People always seem to think that if you criticize capitalism you're sent by Stalin to take away their freedom and install a rigid centralized planned economy. There are more options. Also "the left" isn't some monolithic block. there are within many different opinions.
|
On October 06 2011 03:25 Bitters wrote:Okay, I've read more now on the carried interest loophole. But really, if you want to shift the goal posts to specific issues (since this is not really an "occupy" piece), and want to perfectly talk fair share, then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rateshow would you like to define fair share? absolute or percentage? because the "1%" pay a higher percentage tax rate than 98.5% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) of the American households. Fair share would mean everyone pays the 35% that you say these people should. Do you want to talk about absolute terms? http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htmThe 1% paid 33% of ALL income taxes in the country. So this is even worse than the percentage basis. Suddenly, carried interest affecting a very small amount of people and relative dollars isn't as important.
Fair would be if they pay taxes according to their wealth. The top 10% should pay a really high tax rate because they also own just as much as the 90% together below them.
|
On October 06 2011 03:41 BlackFlag wrote:
Fair would be if they pay taxes according to their wealth. The top 10% should pay a really high tax rate because they also own just as much as the 90% together below them.
They actually do not. This is the problem with class warfare. You draw a line and say everyone below it is poor and everyone is above it is rich and pit them against each other. If you want tax rates to cancel out wealth then you will not have any jobs. The top 10% employs the bottom 90%, and the "gap" between them that liberals/marxists have invented (there is no gap between the top 10% and 90% think about it) has consistently narrowed over time.
If you believe in fairness you must believe in equal treatment under the law. You can't say certain people need to contribute disproportionally more to an entitlement system that they don't even benefit from. Pay your own way, that is what is fair
|
On October 06 2011 03:25 Bitters wrote:Okay, I've read more now on the carried interest loophole. But really, if you want to shift the goal posts to specific issues (since this is not really an "occupy" piece), and want to perfectly talk fair share, then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rateshow would you like to define fair share? absolute or percentage? because the "1%" pay a higher percentage tax rate than 98.5% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) of the American households. Fair share would mean everyone pays the 35% that you say these people should. Do you want to talk about absolute terms? http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htmThe 1% paid 33% of ALL income taxes in the country. So this is even worse than the percentage basis. Suddenly, carried interest affecting a very small amount of people and relative dollars isn't as important.
If they were paying their fair share, they'd be paying how much of the country's money they control.
Which would be close to 50% of ALL income taxes in the country.
|
On October 06 2011 04:04 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 03:41 BlackFlag wrote:
Fair would be if they pay taxes according to their wealth. The top 10% should pay a really high tax rate because they also own just as much as the 90% together below them. They actually do not. This is the problem with class warfare. You draw a line and say everyone below it is poor and everyone is above it is rich and pit them against each other. If you want tax rates to cancel out wealth then you will not have any jobs. The top 10% employs the bottom 90%, and the "gap" between them that liberals/marxists have invented (there is no gap between the top 10% and 90% think about it) has consistently narrowed over time. If you believe in fairness you must believe in equal treatment under the law. You can't say certain people need to contribute disproportionally more to an entitlement system that they don't even benefit from. Pay your own way, that is what is fair
The top 10% aren't creating employment. Jobs are created by demand and demand is created by the general public spending money. Wages are still low and spending is halted so demand is not there. We say raise the wages, then companies say okay we will raise prices and this just continues. Here lies the problems of capitalism.
Your last part is simply not true at all. Congress reps and mostly republicans are straight up defending these top 10%'ers. Blocking bills, walking out of economic discussions, stalling any progress. Our systems are shit.
If they were paying their fair share, they'd be paying how much of the country's money they control.
Which would be close to 50% of ALL income taxes in the country.
^ i still don't like the term fair share and think it is silly btw.
|
On October 06 2011 03:25 Bitters wrote:Okay, I've read more now on the carried interest loophole. But really, if you want to shift the goal posts to specific issues (since this is not really an "occupy" piece), and want to perfectly talk fair share, then... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rateshow would you like to define fair share? absolute or percentage? because the "1%" pay a higher percentage tax rate than 98.5% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) of the American households. Fair share would mean everyone pays the 35% that you say these people should. Do you want to talk about absolute terms? http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/whopaysmost.htmThe 1% paid 33% of ALL income taxes in the country. So this is even worse than the percentage basis. Suddenly, carried interest affecting a very small amount of people and relative dollars isn't as important.
You're only showing income taxes, which (especially federal) are the most progressive taxes in the US.
The payroll tax is flat for most people, although it stops above a certain income so it's a tad regressive overall.
Sales tax, which is a big source of states' tax revenue, is highly regressive. Property tax might be considered regressive too.
Combined, taxes in the US aren't all that progressive.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf
|
How to make the world a better place?
[_] A) Build a long solid political career then make good changes with my political influence.
[_] B) Become an entrepreneur, build a solid company that will make a real change.
[X] C) Whine like a little child in the streets and internet.
I don't know, C looks so much easier. I don't wanna have to think too much.
|
On October 06 2011 04:38 VIB wrote:
How to make the world a better place?
[_] A) Build a long solid political career then make good changes with my political influence.
[_] B) Become an entrepreneur, build a solid company that will make a real change.
[X] C) Whine like a little child in the streets and internet.
I don't know, C looks so much easier. I don't wanna have to think too much.
Wow really? Why don't you read your own signature? Honestly what a hypocrite you are.
|
On October 06 2011 04:04 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 03:41 BlackFlag wrote:
Fair would be if they pay taxes according to their wealth. The top 10% should pay a really high tax rate because they also own just as much as the 90% together below them. They actually do not. This is the problem with class warfare. You draw a line and say everyone below it is poor and everyone is above it is rich and pit them against each other. If you want tax rates to cancel out wealth then you will not have any jobs. The top 10% employs the bottom 90%, and the "gap" between them that liberals/marxists have invented (there is no gap between the top 10% and 90% think about it) has consistently narrowed over time. If you believe in fairness you must believe in equal treatment under the law. You can't say certain people need to contribute disproportionally more to an entitlement system that they don't even benefit from. Pay your own way, that is what is fair
No. You've got some things wrong, I won't go into detail.
1.) You view of "class warfare" is a narrow one without any historical understanding where the term comes from and boiling the 200 year old capitalist class struggle down to who pays taxes is actually insulting. You can really tell that the republicans and their propaganda channels learned a new word and now have to use it everywhere, no matter if it's appropriate.
2.) That you write something like "liberals/ marxists" shows that you don't care to honestly discuss. "Liberals" have nether in the wierd american sense of "everyone slightly leftist" nor in the "Liberalism" sense anything ideologically to do with "Marxism". And the "liberals" in the democratic party are far away from a marxist point of view and neither them want to be labeled as Marxists or Communists, and Communists would not want them labeled as Communist.
3.) The point that the 10% "employ" the 90% is exactly the point of CLASS. And I am not quite sure what you mean by this "invented gap". When I understand it right you mean because the whole living and income standards have risen since the second world war for the whole society, than that's true. But this "invented gap" you talk about has been constantly rising since the 90ties. It's as big as never before if I recall right (not 100% sure). And it's built on the backs of the third world.
4.) "The rich" benefit far more from this system than anyone else. If not, they wouldn't be rich. They are not rich because they worked the land harder than other people. Don't kid yourself because someone made it from the bottom, that's not the general rule. "The rich" (=the capitalists) profit far more from the workforce than the workforce profits of them. Also only the state, or a state like structure can guarantee that "private property" (as in means of production) remains untouched.
Who's to stop the masses to just take what they want, except the state?
A conservative of the 19th century said it best, "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."- Oliver Wendell Holmes.
|
I think this is all a product of Obama's class warfare.
And ontop of what Signet said, I believe the top 5 or 10% are paying 70% of the income tax, while a good bit of lower middle class doesn't pay tax at all. Whats fair share? Sounds like the burden is already on the wealthy.
|
On October 06 2011 04:58 Rick Roy wrote:
I think this is all a product of Obama's class warfare.
So in a few years Obama has messed up the whole US economy, okay.
|
The top 10% aren't creating employment.
*sigh*
1.) You view of "class warfare" is a narrow one without any historical understanding where the term comes from and boiling the 200 year old capitalist class struggle down to who pays taxes is actually insulting. You can really tell that the republicans and their propaganda channels learned a new word and now have to use it everywhere, no matter if it's appropriate.
And I think your view of what capitalists do and do not understand and are capable of understanding and doing is self-serving, arbitrary, and inconsistent.
2.) That you write something like "liberals/ marxists" shows that you don't care to honestly discuss. "Liberals" have nether in the wierd american sense of "everyone slightly leftist" nor in the "Liberalism" sense anything ideologically to do with "Marxism". And the "liberals" in the democratic party are far away from a marxist point of view and neither them want to be labeled as Marxists or Communists, and Communists would not want them labeled as Communist.
If you don't understand why you need to understand the reasons behind people's politics in order to peacefully change them, well, you just might be a party commissar in the mid-1920s.
Also, I wouldn't presume to lecture Austrians on what their politics really is and how their terms are silly and ignorant, I don't see why you can't extend the same courtesy to the United States. Possibly because your political beliefs are not widely popular or even acceptable to the American public, so you are not very happy with them. Obviously the problem is their lack of understanding and retarded (literal sense of the word) political development, correct, comrade? Well you shouldn't worry, the dialectic preordains their progress, slow and frustrating as it may seem. Don't forget that!
3.) The point that the 10% "employ" the 90% is exactly the point of CLASS. And I am not quite sure what you mean by this "invented gap". When I understand it right you mean because the whole living and income standards have risen since the second world war for the whole society, than that's true. But this "invented gap" you talk about has been constantly rising since the 90ties. It's as big as never before if I recall right (not 100% sure). And it's built on the backs of the third world.
Unfortunately (for you) this constant rise has not resulted in the kind of living standard / material inequality that existed prior to the Second World War, and is the cause of less concern about "income inequality" and wealth distribution. You do not understand why this would cause people to not behave in the way you would expect them to.
The times have changed, and you are relying on an archaic understanding of the social dynamic, an understanding that has been tossed on "the ash heap of history," one might say? Huehuehue.
4.) "The rich" benefit far more from this system than anyone else. If not, they wouldn't be rich. They are not rich because they worked the land harder than other people. Don't kid yourself because someone made it from the bottom, that's not the general rule. "The rich" (=the capitalists) profit far more from the workforce than the workforce profits of them. Also only the state, or a state like structure can guarantee that "private property" (as in means of production) remains untouched.
Who's to stop the masses to just take what they want, except the state?
All of that is greatly debatable and is pretty standard Soviet (or earlier) agitprop. Again, times have changed, and your ideological prism has not.
A conservative of the 19th century said it best, "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."- Oliver Wendell Holmes.
Why this quote has any relevance to the discussion can only be explained in terms of probably deliberate ignorance about what conservatives actually believe about the role of government and of taxes. Unfortunately far too often here, and everywhere, people like you seem to think that the Ron Paul or Ayn Rand contingent of conservatism is representative of conservatism's general stance on those roles.
So in a few years Obama has messed up the whole US economy, okay.
Nah, he just messed it up worse.
|
So in a few years Obama has messed up the whole US economy, okay.
Well, he hasn't improved it with his stimulis bill and now he's trying to pass this 'job' bill, but it's nothing more than tax increases to increase his goverment spending
|
On October 06 2011 05:07 Rick Roy wrote:Well, he hasn't improved it with his stimulis bill and now he's trying to pass this 'job' bill, but it's nothing more than tax increases to increase his goverment spending
So things were completely fine before Obama?
|
Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and a very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...?
|
So things were completely fine before Obama?
No I don't think it's all his fault, but he said when he was elected that it was going to be about 'jobs', and unemployment is up. His ideas to stimulate the economy failed, and he's squandered more money and is continuing to do it.
|
On October 06 2011 05:13 Rick Roy wrote:No I don't think it's all his fault, but he said when he was elected that it was going to be about 'jobs', and unemployment is up. His ideas to stimulate the economy failed, and he's squandered more money and is continuing to do it.
Ok fair enough, carry on.
|
Let's be honest, do any of you actually know anyone who was denied the opportunity for a "successful" life because of "the man" or "the system"? I mean legitimately denied the opportunity, as in unable to attend a decent university despite making the grades. I'm not talking about someone who wanted to go to a $40,000 a year private school to study dance or history and then complains about being saddled with too much debt and too little job prospects.
I went to a major in-state public university and worked my butt off (in school and at a job, my dad got laid off while I was in high school and they didn't have much money to help me). I had to take out student loans to help pay for school. I've since graduated and paid those off and am even a homeowner now. I'll pay that off early too but if it weren't for taking out some responsible loans I wouldn't be in the great position I'm in now. I have no credit card debt and have never had any debt besides the student loans and my mortgage - I live within my means.
My parents did everything they could to instill good values in me, like personal responsibility and a respect for education. I come from a decidedly middle-class background and an very ethnically diverse high school. I've worked hard my entire life, took some risks, but never backed down from my own personal responsibilities. I am the 1%...?
Yep, your the evil 1%, Since when did the American dream go from making something out of yourself and your country, to just wanting everything handed to you for free (EBT cards, free healthcare, sharing the wealthy peoples good fortune and hard work)?
|
On October 06 2011 05:13 Rick Roy wrote:No I don't think it's all his fault, but he said when he was elected that it was going to be about 'jobs', and unemployment is up. His ideas to stimulate the economy failed, and he's squandered more money and is continuing to do it.
To be fair, it's easy to be the idiot who blows a hole in the ship and jumps overboard, and tough to be the guy trying save the sinking ship.
I think you know who is who.
|
To be fair, it's easy to be the idiot who blows a hole in the ship and jumps overboard, and tough to be the guy trying save the sinking ship.
I think you know who is who.
I agree that he walked into office in a country with these problems already, but I feel he's only made that hole in the ship a little bigger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
