|
|
On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are.
That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages.
|
On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument.
In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it.
|
On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages.
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 11:47 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:36 Souma wrote:
I don't even think we should be looking at raising tax rates at the moment, we should be looking at reforming the tax code. Effective tax rate is the problem. And on that note, what would be wrong in making deductions progressive (?) as well? Say, you make $50k a year, you can have a mortgage-interest deduction up to amount, if you make 500K a year, you can have a deduction up to amount, and if you make over 1 million a year, you don't get a deduction.
Just an example. Aren't the ideas of Romney at least closer to that than Obamas? I mean, closing loopholes in the tax-system for especially the high income groups seems at least closer to that, than letting tax reliefs run out. Sure, he pleads his case for a flat federal tax, but closing the loopholes is something a lot of people have asked for.
Yeah, Romney is looking to close loopholes while Obama is not really looking for tax reform; however, their plans are both bad. While I like that Romney wants to reform the tax code, I don't particularly like his plan in its entirety. Whereas for Obama, where I think his overall plan is better, I think just letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the top bracket misses the bigger picture, which is effective tax rates.
Oh well, what can you do...
|
On October 31 2012 11:47 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:36 Souma wrote:
I don't even think we should be looking at raising tax rates at the moment, we should be looking at reforming the tax code. Effective tax rate is the problem. And on that note, what would be wrong in making deductions progressive (?) as well? Say, you make $50k a year, you can have a mortgage-interest deduction up to <this> amount, if you make 500K a year, you can have a deduction up to <this> amount, and if you make over 1 million a year, you don't get a deduction.
Just an example. Aren't the ideas of Romney at least closer to that than Obamas? I mean, closing loopholes in the tax-system for especially the high income groups seems at least closer to that, than letting tax reliefs run out. Sure, he pleads his case for a flat federal tax, but closing the loopholes is something a lot of people have asked for.
Well, in a sense, most people do agree with Romney's secondary approach to taxes. The primary being to lower rates across the board, is where it gets tricky. If we could get a party/candidate platform that promised first to overhaul the tax system, and THEN to revise tax rates in whatever direction, I think it would go a long way to relieving longterm problems.
|
On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it.
Ah, so humans were just wandering through the forest and then suddenly just stumbled upon wealth, and then started fighting for it?
It takes work to survive, to eat, to have shelter... Wealth is created, not found.
|
On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response.
There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid."
There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response.
Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again.
|
On October 31 2012 11:54 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. There's nothing in there one can respond to, hence the use of the word "vapid." There is a notion that you paint across multiple posts that bothers me. What makes government spending necessarily inefficient (or less efficient) than consumer or business spending?
What makes it less efficient is the absence of both the price mechanism and the profit incentive.
|
On October 31 2012 11:52 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. Ah, so humans were just wandering through the forest and then suddenly just stumbled upon wealth, and then started fighting for it? It takes work to survive, to eat, to have shelter... Wealth is created, not found.
Precisely, and those that won the rich soil enjoyed bountiful harvests while others toiled endlessly just trying not to starve to death. The good land was worth more than the bad land and so they fought over it.
|
On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again.
"crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there.
So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question.
|
On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again.
Poverty is the natural human condition. We are born into poverty. Capitalism is the only system which has managed to eliminate TRUE poverty for millions of people around the world. So your suggestion that capitalism causes poverty is ludicrous, you really lack a sense of proportion and historical perspective to support that kind of claim.
And the reason I capitalized true poverty is precisely because capitalism has managed to redefine poverty to mean something beyond not having food, shelter, clothing, education, entertainment, technological goods like cell phones, etc. etc. The fact that people with all those things are considered poor is the success of capitalism, not the failure.
|
On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it.
This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question.
You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen?
|
On October 31 2012 12:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. Poverty is the natural human condition. We are born into poverty. Capitalism is the only system which has managed to eliminate TRUE poverty for millions of people around the world. So your suggestion that capitalism causes poverty is ludicrous, you really lack a sense of proportion and historical perspective to support that kind of claim. And the reason I capitalized true poverty is precisely because capitalism has managed to redefine poverty to mean something beyond not having food, shelter, clothing, education, entertainment, technological goods like cell phones, etc. etc. The fact that people with all those things are considered poor is the success of capitalism, not the failure.
I think a lot of our perceived wealth comes from how cheap our products have become by exploiting overseas labour. Just because the exploitation and mass suffering is not happening here doesn't mean it is not happening
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. Poverty is the natural human condition. We are born into poverty. Capitalism is the only system which has managed to eliminate TRUE poverty for millions of people around the world. So your suggestion that capitalism causes poverty is ludicrous, you really lack a sense of proportion and historical perspective to support that kind of claim. And the reason I capitalized true poverty is precisely because capitalism has managed to redefine poverty to mean something beyond not having food, shelter, clothing, education, entertainment, technological goods like cell phones, etc. etc. The fact that people with all those things are considered poor is the success of capitalism, not the failure.
I didn't say capitalism causes poverty, did I? I said capitalism combined with our CORRUPTION creates poverty, thanks very much. I'm not some kind of anti-capitalist boogeyman.
Edit: And what, no, we are not all born into poverty. What the heck...
|
On October 31 2012 12:03 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question. You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen?
Every? No. But a lot of them do.
Just as an anecdote that your post reminded me of: We had a 70' flatscreen at our shelter. We extended the lights-out curfew one time when I was there. It was the Packers Monday Night game. JUST SAYIN'
|
On October 31 2012 12:03 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 11:48 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:45 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:25 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:18 DoubleReed wrote:
But your determination that government will always be less efficient than the private sector does not acknowledge the tradeoff. Not to mention that the blanket statement is empirically untrue.
Again, I must ask if you believe there is ever an instance where higher taxes on the wealthy is necessary. Ever. There are dozens of instances when higher taxes are desirable. I don't even know how to respond to this straw man. How did people get this notion that I am an anarchist or something? I'm getting tired of arguing against ideas I've never advocated. No no, you misunderstand. I want you to describe a situation where you would raise taxes on the wealthy. It's not a strawman. I'm asking for an explanation. If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. And economic and social problems cause wealth disparity. Which came first, the hen or the egg? Circular argument. In my opinion social problems came first as primitve humans fought over original wealth thereby creating wealth inequality when some won and others lost, I think this is called the human condition. Doesn't mean we should not try to do something about it. This isn't an opinion. Studies show both. Studies also show that social stratification is required to have a functioning society. In our society, we use wealth to define stratification (for the most part). Income discrepencies aren't only useful, I would argue they are imperative. I don't think it's a bad thing to keep them small, but to do away with them would obviously be disastrous to our nations productivity.
Haha, I am not sam!zdat and don't argue for communism, I simply think the wealth gap is becoming so large that it is causing problems in society and some policies need to be put in place to help reduce it, bot most definately not get rid of it.
|
On October 31 2012 12:04 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:On October 31 2012 11:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:
[quote]
If there were insufficient government revenues to provide education, or insufficient government revenues to provide subsistence to the poor, or insufficient government revenues to pay for other basic government functions such as law or defense, AND there were not other sectors in which government waste could be cut, then I would support raising taxes. And not raising simply on the "wealthy," whatever that means, but according to a consistent progressive tax rate on the country as a whole. Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity? And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states. And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. Poverty is the natural human condition. We are born into poverty. Capitalism is the only system which has managed to eliminate TRUE poverty for millions of people around the world. So your suggestion that capitalism causes poverty is ludicrous, you really lack a sense of proportion and historical perspective to support that kind of claim. And the reason I capitalized true poverty is precisely because capitalism has managed to redefine poverty to mean something beyond not having food, shelter, clothing, education, entertainment, technological goods like cell phones, etc. etc. The fact that people with all those things are considered poor is the success of capitalism, not the failure. I think a lot of our perceived wealth comes from how cheap our products have become by exploiting overseas labour. Just because the exploitation and mass suffering is not happening here doesn't mean it is not happening
We're not exploiting people overseas. Their lives are improving rapidly.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 31 2012 12:05 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2012 12:03 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 12:00 BluePanther wrote:On October 31 2012 11:57 Souma wrote:On October 31 2012 11:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:47 aksfjh wrote:On October 31 2012 11:46 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:43 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:On October 31 2012 11:40 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 31 2012 11:36 DoubleReed wrote:
[quote]
Errr... you don't think the progressiveness of the tax rate should have anything to do with wealth disparity?
And there are insufficient government revenues to pay for education. That's stateside, but it's still true in a lot of states.
And it's also rather strange that you didn't say anything about what's happening with the actual economy. Is that irrelevant? 1) I don't care about wealth disparity. I care about the functions of government being fulfilled, and I don't think redistribution is one of them. 2) We have PLENTY of revenue to pay for education. But it's getting diverted to wasteful programs, pensions, etc. 3) What in the actual economy would you like me to comment on? You realize wealth disparity in and of itself causes economic and social problems right? The French revolution did not happen because some people just decided the guillotines were not getting enough use. It's not the inequality that matters, it is the absolute standard of living of the poor. Caring about the bottom is compassion, caring about the top is resentment. Revolutions should not be inspired by resentment, but they quite often are. That may be the most vapid post I have read in 25 pages. No, the most vapid posts are one's that attack a post without offering a single argument or constructive criticism in response. Caring about the poor is making sure we design a society in which masses of people aren't relegated to the crutches of poverty due to the consequences of a brutal system. I believe just saying that we will feed the poor, provide them with shelter etc. is not sufficient; I believe true "compassion" is making sure they aren't poor in the first place. Obviously we cannot ever erase poverty in its entirety, but we can do much, much better than now. It just so happens, from my understanding, a lot of the struggles the poor and middle-class face occur at the benefit of many of those at the top. It's how capitalism combined with our corrupt system works. I've addressed it in a couple of previous posts which I never really got responses back for, so I'm too lazy to go into detail again. "crutches of poverty".... I honestly stopped reading there. So how many flat screen TV's and how many premium cable channels must you lack before you're considered to be in the "crutches of poverty"? Honest question. You honestly think every poor person is sitting around watching NFL on an LCD screen? Every? No. But a lot of them do. Just as an anecdote that your post reminded me of: We had a 70' flatscreen at our shelter. We extended the lights-out curfew one time when I was there. It was the Packers Monday Night game. JUST SAYIN'
Hahah nice. Anyway, just keep in mind I'm talking about poverty before outside assistance. I'm talking about the status people would be in if it wasn't for government or some form of organizational assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
