PDA

View Full Version : American Politics in One Easy Lesson



Odysseus
02-17-2012, 05:55 PM
February 17, 2012
By Michael Bargo Jr.

Michelle, a citizen of France, was visiting an acquaintance, Paul, in New York City. Years ago Michelle's sister went to graduate school with Paul, and the three have kept in contact. Michelle was able to spend all afternoon with Paul while she was in New York for business. They were walking in Central Park, enjoying a beautiful, early spring day. Michelle, anxious to learn more about America, asks Paul a question about American politics.

As they sit down on a bench together, Michelle brushes back her hair, looks at Paul, and asks: "I have always been interested in government. What can you tell me about the government of America?"

"Well," Paul answers, "it's like this. We have two big political parties, and the elections are always about their two views of society and the economy."

"Yes?" Asks Michelle. "Can you tell me what those views are?"

"Well," says Paul, "to put it briefly, one party, the Democrats, is interested in helping people, and the other party, the Republicans, is only interested in themselves. They don't want to help people. They are wealthy and don't pay enough taxes."

"Really?" Asks Michelle. "So how do the Democrats go about helping people?"

"Oh through food assistance, housing, education, health care; that sort of thing. Helping people who can't afford to help themselves," answers Paul.

"And how are the Democrats able to help people? Is this based on charity?" Asks Michelle.

"Oh no," says Paul, "The government taxes people and the Democrats give it to people in need."

"Where does the tax money come from?" Asks Michelle. "Does it come from ordinary working people?"

"Well the government says that the top 10% of taxpayers pay 70% of the taxes," Paul responds.

"Oh I see," says Michelle, "The people who earn the most money are the ones who pay to help the poor."

"Well, the Republicans are the richest people, they have the most money, but it's the Democrats who extend the helping hand to the poor." Says Paul.

"Didn't you just say that the wealthiest people pay 70% of the taxes?" Says Michelle, "so doesn't this money then go to help the poor? So aren't the wealthy really the ones who help the poor?"

"Well no, that's not how it is. You see the rich are greedy, and they don't want to help the poor." Says Paul.

"What does 'greedy' mean?" Asks Michelle.

"Well," says Paul, "greedy means you want more and more money, you never get enough."

"So then the wealthy keep paying more and more taxes, and help the poor more and more all the time?" Asks Michelle.

"Yes, you could say that. But the Democrats point out that the Republicans should pay more. They are always holding back. They don't want to pay their fair share," states Paul.

"Oh I see. The rich pay 70% of the taxes, they pay the lion's share of the money that goes to help the poor, but the Democrats always want more and more money." Michelle asks.

"I thought you said greedy was wanting more and more?" Asks Michelle. "Then if the Democrats always want more, aren't they acting like they're greedy?"

"No not at all," interrupts Paul. "You see the Democrats want more money from the rich, not for themselves, but so they can help the poor overcome their challenges in life. The poor are not as fortunate, they always need a helping hand."

"So there is no limit to the needs of the poor," Michelle says quietly. "I understand. No matter how much money the rich pay in taxes, it can never be enough."

"Now I'm confused," says Michelle, who's beginning to feel a little frustrated. She stands up, walks a few feet away from the bench, then comes back and says to Paul: "Let's see: the government never gets enough, but the Republicans, who pay for it all, are portrayed as the greedy ones? How does that make sense to you?"

"You don't understand," says Paul, who is now beginning to feel frustrated himself. He likes Michelle but senses that she just doesn't get it. "The needs of the poor must be met, so the rich must always pay more to help them."

"Well you already said that," asks Michelle. "Then you said there is no limit to how much money Democrats want to take from the rich to help the poor. How much money do the rich have? Do they have an infinite amount of money?"

"Well, I haven't thought about it," says Paul. "I guess it's not infinite, but they certainly can pay in more than they are now."

"Well, I don't mean to sound argumentative," says Michelle, "but there's something missing in the explanation you give. You said the needs of the poor are unlimited, and the Democrats have no limit to the amount of money they want for the government. If the amount of money the rich have is not unlimited, won't it run out some day? What will you do when the rich have no money left to satisfy the Democrats and take care of the needs of the poor?"

"Well, the needs of the poor are so important, I guess if we reach that point, we'll just have to borrow money." Says Paul.

"Who will you borrow it from?" asks Michelle, "...if you take all the money away from the rich they won't have any left to either pay taxes or loan money to the government, will they?"

"Well," says Paul, "I guess at that point in time, if we ever get there, we'll have to start borrowing money from foreign countries."

"Hasn't your government been borrowing money from foreign countries for the past three years?" Asks Michelle.

She finally gets enough of this conversation, stands up, and says to Paul. "Well, I'm getting rather confused: the people you say are greedy, the rich; are the ones paying for everything. And the ones who want more and more, like there's no tomorrow, are the responsible ones?"

Paul is staring off at a group of trees, and has no answer for her.

She stares at him speechless for a moment, breaks into a smile and asks: "Do you want to go get a cup of coffee?"

"Yes," he says, and gets up from the bench. "Let's take a break and get a cup of coffee.

"Who's buying?" He suddenly asks.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/02/american_politics_in_one_easy_lesson.html at February 17, 2012 - 02:53:55 PM CST

Arroyo_Doble
02-17-2012, 06:07 PM
The rich just can't catch a break in this country.

Odysseus
02-17-2012, 06:20 PM
The rich just can't catch a break in this country.

Ooh, here's my daily minimum requirement of snark.

Now that you've weighed in, do you have an answer to the question of how much a person ought to have to pay in taxes? What percentage of income should we be allowed to keep by our most gracious ruling class, while they distribute the rest of it and excoriate us for our selfishness? Please, enlighten us all. I, and everyone else here, await your reply.

Arroyo_Doble
02-17-2012, 06:24 PM
Ooh, here's my daily minimum requirement of snark.

Now that you've weighed in, do you have an answer to the question of how much a person ought to have to pay in taxes? What percentage of income should we be allowed to keep by our most gracious ruling class, while they distribute the rest of it and excoriate us for our selfishness? Please, enlighten us all. I, and everyone else here, await your reply.

The government is not the Ruling Class; it's the Ruling Class' muscle.

Odysseus
02-17-2012, 06:27 PM
The government is not the Ruling Class; it's the Ruling Class' muscle.

Interesting comment, but irrelevant. Here's the question again, Snarko:


Now that you've weighed in, do you have an answer to the question of how much a person ought to have to pay in taxes? What percentage of income should we be allowed to keep by our most gracious ruling class, while they distribute the rest of it and excoriate us for our selfishness? Please, enlighten us all. I, and everyone else here, await your reply.

Arroyo_Doble
02-17-2012, 06:29 PM
Interesting comment, but irrelevant. Here's the question again, Snarko:


Now that you've weighed in, do you have an answer to the question of how much a person ought to have to pay in taxes? What percentage of income should we be allowed to keep by our most gracious ruling class, while they distribute the rest of it and excoriate us for our selfishness? Please, enlighten us all. I, and everyone else here, await your reply.

Relevant.

Janice
02-17-2012, 08:12 PM
You know the whole thing makes me think about another aspect of this. You know that some charities give almost 10 or 20% of the monies contributed to them to the work they are actually sponsoring. While others or most of them give about 50-95% of the monies that are "filtered" thru them. The rest of course going to "administrative" costs. On average I believe its about 75-80% of the monies given to charities that actually make it to the intended target recipient

How much of every dollar do you think that is "filtered" thru government (taxes) actually gets to the intended recipient for social services (the poor)? I think about 80-90% goes to "administrative" costs before it ever "trickles down" to the intended recipient. So only about 10- 20% of every dollar ever makes it to the target recipient.

And who gives more to charity? (This is rhetorical of course)

:cool:

Zathras
02-17-2012, 09:12 PM
Relevant.

Now how about answering the fucking question instead of doing a tap dance worthy of Dancing with the Stars.

Arroyo_Doble
02-17-2012, 10:40 PM
Now how about answering the fucking question instead of doing a tap dance worthy of Dancing with the Stars.

What? No derp picture?

fettpett
02-17-2012, 11:10 PM
What? No derp picture?

http://www.gifsforum.com/images/image/herp%20derp/preview/herp%20derp.jpg

here you go

Hawkgirl
02-17-2012, 11:23 PM
The government is not the Ruling Class; it's the Ruling Class' muscle.

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

Why don't you answer the question instead of deflecting all the time? How much more money should the Ruling Class aka Governement take from taxpayers????
When there is nothing left to take anymore is the answer Shirlock.

Zathras
02-18-2012, 01:15 AM
What? No derp picture?

With you it's not needed. The contents of your posts are always filled with enough herp derp to go around without the pictures.

NJCardFan
02-18-2012, 01:42 AM
Is there a reason why this moron is allowed to post here? At least wee wee and nova add some political commentary, albeit skewed, but yoyo is about as useless as, well...
http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/78500/Submarine-Screendoor--78854.jpg

Odysseus
02-18-2012, 01:57 AM
Relevant.
Nope. The question is relevant. Bolding the text doesn't change that. Any answer coming?

:blah: :blah: :blah: :blah:

Why don't you answer the question instead of deflecting all the time? How much more money should the Ruling Class aka Governement take from taxpayers????
When there is nothing left to take anymore is the answer Shirlock.

He won't answer. He's use ridicule and snark to evade the question because he doesn't have an answer, at least not one that he will cop to. He's just another gutless internet wiseass who hopes that by using ridicule to attack his ideological adversaries, he'll undermine our arguments, but he's not fooling anyone.

Arroyo_Doble
02-18-2012, 10:22 AM
Nope. The question is relevant. Bolding the text doesn't change that. Any answer coming?


He won't answer. He's use ridicule and snark to evade the question because he doesn't have an answer, at least not one that he will cop to. He's just another gutless internet wiseass who hopes that by using ridicule to attack his ideological adversaries, he'll undermine our arguments, but he's not fooling anyone.

You seriously have no self awareness, do you? You post some fantasy tripe with not even a passing glance at reality and expect it to be taken seriously? Well, seriously by rational people, anyway. Iread it as failed satire not a reasonable appeal for debate on the proper level of taxation in a (small d) democratic society. If you want that discussion ( and you don't), you won't post some mindless, echo chamber fantasy. No, you posted that drivel for affirmation of your bias.

So stop the pretense, Cupcake. You don't want debate; you want to be stroked.

obx
02-18-2012, 10:46 AM
Maybe if we all give a number, Arroyo will understand the question and finally give an answer. I'll go first. I think taxes are just theft we tolerate, so I think 5% federal is more than enough. Five percent, all incomes, no deductions.

NJCardFan
02-18-2012, 12:28 PM
You seriously have no self awareness, do you? You post some fantasy tripe with not even a passing glance at reality and expect it to be taken seriously? Well, seriously by rational people, anyway. Iread it as failed satire not a reasonable appeal for debate on the proper level of taxation in a (small d) democratic society. If you want that discussion ( and you don't), you won't post some mindless, echo chamber fantasy. No, you posted that drivel for affirmation of your bias.

So stop the pretense, Cupcake. You don't want debate; you want to be stroked.

Allow me to be more direct. As it stands, half the people in this country pay zero taxes at all while the top 10%, you know, those people you hate so much, pay 70% of this country's taxes. So, breaking it down even more, 10% pay 70% while the rest of the 90% only pay 30%. Now here's where it gets goofy. Many in the bottom 50% get whatever taxes they've paid in during the year refunded. Many still get more back by using such programs such as "EARNED Income Credit", meaning, I guess, that sitting home and downloading babies they can ill afford to raise constitutes "earning" a tax credit but I digress. As I said, some people not only pay no taxes but thanks to income redistribution scams like the one I mentioned they get back more than they paid in and that "earned" income comes from the 50% who actually do pay taxes. So, the question is, if the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes and people like you believe that this is still not enough, exactly what % of one's income should go to taxes? Should this burden be for everyone or should you be punished for actually achieving in life? Answer the question. If you don't, then admit you're nothing but a troll and go away.

Arroyo_Doble
02-18-2012, 12:36 PM
Allow me to be more direct. As it stands, half the people in this country pay zero taxes at all while the top 10%, you know, those people you hate so much, pay 70% of this country's taxes.

Since you made two factually incorrect statements in the second sentence, I will ignore the rest.

Actually three but it would be hard to prove who I do and do not hate.

Odysseus
02-18-2012, 12:47 PM
You seriously have no self awareness, do you?
No, I'm pretty self aware.


You post some fantasy tripe with not even a passing glance at reality and expect it to be taken seriously?

It's called an "analogy." It made a number of substantive claims which were true, namely the attitudes of the major parties towards taxation, and the amounts paid. It is a serious issue, especially since we are now reaching a point where our debt is rapidly surpassing our ability to pay it off, and I do expect serious people to take it seriously. I don't expect snarky punks to do so. Which are you?


Well, seriously by rational people, anyway.
We do take it seriously.


Iread it as failed satire not a reasonable appeal for debate on the proper level of taxation in a (small d) democratic society. If you want that discussion ( and you don't), you won't post some mindless, echo chamber fantasy. No, you posted that drivel for affirmation of your bias.
No, I posted it because it was a rather cogent statement of our current fiscal situation. You read it as failed satire because it didn't appeal to you or your biases, and because it ridicules your position, so you responded with a silly, snarky crack. When pressed to answer, you refused.


So stop the pretense, Cupcake. You don't want debate; you want to be stroked.
No, I love a good debate. Haven't you noticed that I get into them all of the time? In fact, this is what it looks like when somebody responds to questions or statements with substantive answers. You should try it.

If anything, you're projecting your inability to talk about anything outside of your comfort zone on the rest of us, while preening about your allegedly superior rationality. You won't debate, so instead, you're stroking yourself, something that you do habitually. It's not particularly entertaining, but it does explain why you're so blind.

Allow me to be more direct. As it stands, half the people in this country pay zero taxes at all while the top 10%, you know, those people you hate so much, pay 70% of this country's taxes. So, breaking it down even more, 10% pay 70% while the rest of the 90% only pay 30%. Now here's where it gets goofy. Many in the bottom 50% get whatever taxes they've paid in during the year refunded. Many still get more back by using such programs such as "EARNED Income Credit", meaning, I guess, that sitting home and downloading babies they can ill afford to raise constitutes "earning" a tax credit but I digress. As I said, some people not only pay no taxes but thanks to income redistribution scams like the one I mentioned they get back more than they paid in and that "earned" income comes from the 50% who actually do pay taxes. So, the question is, if the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes and people like you believe that this is still not enough, exactly what % of one's income should go to taxes? Should this burden be for everyone or should you be punished for actually achieving in life? Answer the question. If you don't, then admit you're nothing but a troll and go away.

He won't admit it or go away. He's here to prove to himself that he's cleverer than we are. Unfortunately, he isn't, and he's getting frustrated, hence the increasingly nasty tone that he's been taking. Expect a cheap shot about my alleged loyalty to Israel over the US next.

Zathras
02-18-2012, 12:57 PM
I love a good pwnage in the morning with my coffee and toast...which is what Ody does every time with the snarky ones posts. :thumbsup:

Arroyo_Doble
02-18-2012, 01:08 PM
I love a good pwnage in the morning with my coffee and toast...which is what Ody does every time with the snarky ones posts. :thumbsup:

Stroke.

Zathras
02-18-2012, 01:54 PM
Stroke.

Truth...something you don't have any clue about. Now, how about answering the fucking question and quit playing dodgeball.

fettpett
02-18-2012, 02:26 PM
Since you made two factually incorrect statements in the second sentence, I will ignore the rest.

Actually three but it would be hard to prove who I do and do not hate.

income taxes, not SS, Medicare/cade, or w/e else you think you need to be snarky about

MrsSmith
02-18-2012, 02:56 PM
Stroke.Just admit that you can't answer the questions and admit defeat. You can't win this one because the facts are that the rich pay for everything already, and the greedy ones are the ones constantly demanding more, not those that earn their money, pay their taxes, and also contribute to charity.

Arroyo_Doble
02-18-2012, 03:21 PM
income taxes, not SS, Medicare/cade, or w/e else you think you need to be snarky about

Yea. Sucks when the bullshit is pointed out. Galling.

Zathras
02-18-2012, 03:28 PM
Yea. Sucks when the bullshit is pointed out. Galling.

Well that explains why you're so snarky right now since what you describe is always done to you.

Rockntractor
02-18-2012, 03:30 PM
Yea. Sucks when the bullshit is pointed out. Galling.

Why do you continue spewing it?http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/a61.jpg

fettpett
02-18-2012, 03:40 PM
Yea. Sucks when the bullshit is pointed out. Galling.

since those are already factors, they don't really matter, everyone pays up through the first 105k or so. Now if you want to argue that should go up, fine w/e but everyone still pays. Same with medicare/caid. Only variable is Federal Income Taxes. get that through your head.

Arroyo_Doble
02-18-2012, 03:51 PM
since those are already factors, they don't really matter, everyone pays up through the first 105k or so. Now if you want to argue that should go up, fine w/e but everyone still pays. Same with medicare/caid. Only variable is Federal Income Taxes. get that through your head.

Regardless (and I'm not even getting into other federal taxes), when the bullshit, the outright aggressive untruth that half do not pay taxes at the federal level, is presented, I am going to call it what it is; a lie.

Apache
02-18-2012, 06:15 PM
Regardless (and I'm not even getting into other federal taxes), when the bullshit, the outright aggressive untruth that half do not pay taxes at the federal level, is presented, I am going to call it what it is; a lie.

Yet you never back up your claim that it is a lie...Why is that? Show us the Truthtm as you know it...

fettpett
02-18-2012, 06:18 PM
Regardless (and I'm not even getting into other federal taxes), when the bullshit, the outright aggressive untruth that half do not pay taxes at the federal level, is presented, I am going to call it what it is; a lie.

back your claim up. this is the second time you've said that but haven't come up with any proof

Odysseus
02-18-2012, 09:57 PM
Stroke.
More masturbation from Annoyo.

Yea. Sucks when the bullshit is pointed out. Galling.
That was the point of the OP, pointing out the BS of the left. It clearly sucks to be you.

Regardless (and I'm not even getting into other federal taxes), when the bullshit, the outright aggressive untruth that half do not pay taxes at the federal level, is presented, I am going to call it what it is; a lie.
And then, when you are asked to provide proof of your claim, you will make a snarky crack and not pony up evidence. However, the fact is that 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes. This is the US government's own figure, not ours. In 2006, the IRS reported receipt of 134,372,678 individual income tax returns, of which 90,593,081 (67.42%) paid or owed federal income tax for 2005, leaving 32.58% filers who did not owe any federal income tax. In 2009, that percentage had risen to 47%. Got any numbers to counter that, or are you just going to keep typing BS over and over?

Meanwhile, you never answered the question put to you. How much of our income should we be allowed to keep? What should the top rate be?

Arroyo_Doble
02-18-2012, 10:19 PM
. However, the fact is that 47% of Americans pay no federal income taxes.

And that would mean something if income taxes were the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

Are they?

Hawkgirl
02-18-2012, 10:27 PM
You seriously have no self awareness, do you? You post some fantasy tripe with not even a passing glance at reality and expect it to be taken seriously? Well, seriously by rational people, anyway. Iread it as failed satire not a reasonable appeal for debate on the proper level of taxation in a (small d) democratic society. If you want that discussion ( and you don't), you won't post some mindless, echo chamber fantasy. No, you posted that drivel for affirmation of your bias.

So stop the pretense, Cupcake. You don't want debate; you want to be stroked.

So in other words, your answer is...

"I dislike Ody because he's smarter than me, and I clearly can't debate with him, so I will just insult him and anyone else who dares to make me answer a question I know I can't defend."


So, whose ego needs stroking? I think the overwhelming majority would say it's you, princess.

Hawkgirl
02-18-2012, 10:32 PM
And that would mean something if income taxes were the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

Are they?

So should the people who pay no income tax also be exempt from sales tax and gas tax? And any tax, for that matter? Who should pick up the difference? How much more should the top income earners and middle class earners pay...which brings us back to the original question that you haven't answered.

Arroyo_Doble
02-18-2012, 11:43 PM
So should the people who pay no income tax also be exempt from sales tax and gas tax? And any tax, for that matter?

No. But the fact that they do pay taxes should not be ignored or lied about.

Rockntractor
02-18-2012, 11:50 PM
No. But the fact that they do pay taxes should not be ignored or lied about.

Idiot troll is trolling.http://planetsmilies.net/angry-smiley-7991.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

Arroyo_Doble
02-19-2012, 12:12 AM
Idiot troll is trolling.http://planetsmilies.net/angry-smiley-7991.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

Oh noes! Someone disagrees with the collective!

Troll!!!!!!oneone1112!!!!

Apache
02-19-2012, 12:22 AM
Oh noes! Someone disagrees with the collective!

Troll!!!!!!oneone1112!!!!

No. You're being called a troll because you won't answer a question posed to you. Many have asked( myself included) and you have yet to answer. You made a claim but have not backed it up. You have done nothing but call names, THE sign that you know you're wrong....

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 12:24 AM
Oh noes! Someone disagrees with the collective!

Troll!!!!!!oneone1112!!!!

You didn't offer any new information or debate, just your typical snarky trolling.

Apocalypse
02-19-2012, 01:01 AM
No. But the fact that they do pay taxes should not be ignored or lied about.

He has a point, and this one I keep finding interesting.

The left keep telling us they only care about the poor and downtrodden. Lower their taxes and help them. But as he's pointing out, the "Sin Tax" is directed almost exclusively at the poor, and it originates almost exclusively from the left who keep insisting on raising it.

Arroyo, why do the left hate the poor so much to keep imposing such barbaric taxes on them? Taxes that are singling out the poor and lower income. How many rich people do you know that buy kool cigs, and a 30 pack of Bush light for the weekend? The items that are taxes far more, for being "Sinful".

Why does Obama hate the poor demanding a new "Sin Tax" on sugary foods? Another item regular eaten by lower income people.

Why does the left hate the poor?

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 01:08 AM
He has a point, and this one I keep finding interesting.

The left keep telling us they only care about the poor and downtrodden. Lower their taxes and help them. But as he's pointing out, the "Sin Tax" is directed almost exclusively at the poor, and it originates almost exclusively from the left who keep insisting on raising it.

Arroyo, why do the left hate the poor so much to keep imposing such barbaric taxes on them? Taxes that are singling out the poor and lower income. How many rich people do you know that buy kool cigs, and a 30 pack of Bush light for the weekend? The items that are taxes far more, for being "Sinful".

Why does Obama hate the poor demanding a new "Sin Tax" on sugary foods? Another item regular eaten by lower income people.

Why does the left hate the poor?
Outstanding!http://planetsmilies.net/cool-smiley-9027.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

NJCardFan
02-19-2012, 01:12 AM
Regardless (and I'm not even getting into other federal taxes), when the bullshit, the outright aggressive untruth that half do not pay taxes at the federal level, is presented, I am going to call it what it is; a lie.

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Now dispute these numbers. Not with snark but with hard evidence.

NJCardFan
02-19-2012, 01:30 AM
No. But the fact that they do pay taxes should not be ignored or lied about.

OK, I'm going to go......real.....sloooooowwww for you, k?

Johnny makes only $30K a year. Johnny had $2500 taken from his paycheck in federal taxes withheld. With me so far? Good. Now, after all his standard deductions as well as claiming his 2 children, Johnny finds out he's getting a tax refund of $3,000. So, even though Johnny got $2,500 taken from his check, he's getting back $500 more than he paid in hence he bears zero tax burden. Thanks to those gubment tax programs like I mentioned, someone else is picking up his tax burden. However, this line of logic is all lost on you. No go get your shinebox.

Arroyo_Doble
02-19-2012, 01:31 AM
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Now dispute these numbers. Not with snark but with hard evidence.

I do not dispute the trope about income taxes. I dispute they are the only taxes paid at the federal level.

On a side note, I am well aware of what you do and my wife is an inner city high school teacher. We agree on many more things than you realize. But that is real world shit.

Odysseus
02-19-2012, 01:48 AM
And that would mean something if income taxes were the only taxes assessed at the federal level.

Are they?
No, and nobody said that they were. We're talking about federal income taxes.


No. But the fact that they do pay taxes should not be ignored or lied about.
Nobody is lying about it. The left demands progressive income taxes and claims that the 1% need to be taxed at higher rates because of "fairness", despite the fact that the 1% pays far more in taxes than any other equivalent group.

I do not dispute the trope about income taxes. I dispute they are the only taxes paid at the federal level.

On a side note, I am well aware of what you do and my wife is an inner city high school teacher. We agree on many more things than you realize. But that is real world shit.
In other words, you redefined the debate in order to claim that our position was false.

Do you realize what a tool you come off as when you try to play these asinine games?

Apache
02-19-2012, 02:05 AM
I do not dispute the trope about income taxes. I dispute they are the only taxes paid at the federal level.

On a side note, I am well aware of what you do and my wife is an inner city high school teacher. We agree on many more things than you realize. But that is real world shit.

You are so full of shit! DAMN!

When are you going to stop playing these stupid games? You sit back and snark at a distance, and then say: "Oops, you guys are right"... You knew exactly what was being talked about.

NJCardFan
02-19-2012, 03:17 AM
No, and nobody said that they were. We're talking about federal income taxes.


Nobody is lying about it. The left demands progressive income taxes and claims that the 1% need to be taxed at higher rates because of "fairness", despite the fact that the 1% pays far more in taxes than any other equivalent group.

In other words, you redefined the debate in order to claim that our position was false.

Do you realize what a tool you come off as when you try to play these asinine games?

The truth of the matter is that the only fair way to tax everyone, well, fairly is something like the Fair Tax. This way everyone pays the same rate, however, not everyone pays the same amount. Keeping the Fair Tax as is, the wealthy purchase more new items at a greater expense so they will definitely be paying their "fair share". Right now, the tax system is not kind to achievers and releases slugs from any burden at all. Yoyo can go on about other federal taxes but everyone pays those pesky embedded taxes which in the grand scheme of things are not life or game changing. Nowhere near the impact of income tax.

Janice
02-19-2012, 05:27 AM
http://i.imgur.com/CxnKx.jpg

fettpett
02-19-2012, 10:53 AM
I do not dispute the trope about income taxes. I dispute they are the only taxes paid at the federal level.

On a side note, I am well aware of what you do and my wife is an inner city high school teacher. We agree on many more things than you realize. But that is real world shit.

You've known EXACTLY that it is just Federal Income Taxes that have been talked about and discussed in this thread and the other one you've done nothing but trolled in and gone on about this stupid meme of "those aren't the only taxes paid, so it's a lie".

We know there are other taxes, and depending on the tax, there may be an agreement on whether or no they need to be paid or not.

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 11:33 AM
I do not dispute the trope about income taxes. I dispute they are the only taxes paid at the federal level.

On a side note, I am well aware of what you do and my wife is an inner city high school teacher. We agree on many more things than you realize. But that is real world shit.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/more-fail-please-failure-demotivational-posters-1326902957.jpg

Janice
02-19-2012, 11:55 AM
The Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 70 Percent of Federal Income Taxes (http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners)

Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the U.S. tax system is already highly progressive. The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 05:45 PM
Interesting comment, but irrelevant. Here's the question again, Snarko:


Now that you've weighed in, do you have an answer to the question of how much a person ought to have to pay in taxes? What percentage of income should we be allowed to keep by our most gracious ruling class, while they distribute the rest of it and excoriate us for our selfishness? Please, enlighten us all. I, and everyone else here, await your reply.

You're looking a specific percentage but the correct answer is they should be taxed however much it takes.

If we take a scientific look at what works and what doesn't, focus on efficiency and effectiveness rather than profit, we can have robust social programs that work for not much more than we are paying now. Adam Smith, in his foundational text on free market economics, The Wealth of Nations, explained that the wealthy should pay more than their proportional share of their wealth in taxes to sustain the social needs of the society within which they come upon their wealth.

You state that the wealthy pay the lions share of certain taxes, which is true, but that's because they also own the vast majority of the nation's wealth. This would be like a guy going to dinner with five friends, and being outraged that he has to pay a larger percentage of the bill, because he ordered $80 worth of steak and lobster with a $300 bottle of wine, while the five friends ate $10 appetizers and water. Of course he has to pay more back.

If the system were modestly different, resulting in a more equitable distribution of wealth (and no this does not mean everyone is paid the exact same), then the taxation would also be different. If working people had a larger share of the pie, they would be expected to pay a larger share of the taxes.

These are fairly modest ideas that most nations consider rather conservative in nature. It's only within an extremely desperate far-right ideological framework that these ideas appear radical.

Nationalizing all property in the country and executing the wealthy to permanently change the very coordinates of the system as we know it is an extreme radical proposal. Adjusting tax rates and expanding social programs so that the system that currently exists can continue to function is actually conservative in nature.

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 05:53 PM
http://i.imgur.com/CxnKx.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/la739.png
http://i.imgur.com/76OOL.png

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Starbuck
02-19-2012, 05:53 PM
.........You state that the wealthy pay the lions share of certain taxes, which is true, but that's because they also own the vast majority of the nation's wealth. This would be like a guy going to dinner with five friends, and being outraged that he has to pay a larger percentage of the bill, because he ordered $80 worth of steak and lobster with a $300 bottle of wine, while the five friends ate $10 appetizers and water...........

No. What you are saying is the rich guy should pay more simply because he can. Now if he consumed more, then of course he should pay more, which is what happens daily here in the USA. Rich guy drives a gas hog and pays. Rich guy buys a big house and pays. Rich guy goes to fancy restaurant and pays.

We pay income tax, not wealth tax. Florida tried to tax people on net worth. Didn't get anywhere.

Starbuck
02-19-2012, 05:56 PM
http://i.imgur.com/la739.png
http://i.imgur.com/76OOL.png



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a3/Graphic.png/360px-Graphic.png
So what would you rather have 8% of 1983, or 7% of 2007?

Odysseus
02-19-2012, 06:01 PM
You're looking a specific percentage but the correct answer is they should be taxed however much it takes.
However much it takes for what, exactly? To pay for government? They don't have enough assets to cover our current expenditures.


If we take a scientific look at what works and what doesn't, focus on efficiency and effectiveness rather than profit, we can have robust social programs that work for not much more than we are paying now. Adam Smith, in his foundational text on free market economics, The Wealth of Nations, explained that the wealthy should pay more than their proportional share of their wealth in taxes to sustain the social needs of the society within which they come upon their wealth.
But how much more? Should we tax a rich man until he needs the safety net because we have rendered him poor? For that matter, what is the moral claim that the poor have on the taxes of the rich?


You state that the wealthy pay the lions share of certain taxes, which is true, but that's because they also own the vast majority of the nation's wealth. This would be like a guy going to dinner with five friends, and being outraged that he has to pay a larger percentage of the bill, because he ordered $80 worth of steak and lobster with a $300 bottle of wine, while the five friends ate $10 appetizers and water. Of course he has to pay more back.
Yes, but if they went to dinner and the waiter presented him with the only check and the others informed him that he was on the hook for their dinners, regardless of what they ate, then he'd have a right to complain, wouldn't he? And after the first meal, they'd have no constraints on what they ordered, because they know that they aren't paying for it. So, once again, what is their claim on his purse?


If the system were modestly different, resulting in a more equitable distribution of wealth (and no this does not mean everyone is paid the exact same), then the taxation would also be different. If working people had a larger share of the pie, they would be expected to pay a larger share of the taxes.
You talk about an equitable distribution of wealth as if wealth is just sitting there, waiting to be distributed. It isn't. It must be created, first. The factory that employs a worker wouldn't exist without the risks undergone by the owners. Why are they obligated to share that with their workers?


These are fairly modest ideas that most nations consider rather conservative in nature. It's only within an extremely desperate far-right ideological framework that these ideas appear radical.
No, they are radical ideas that have been presented so often, in such moderate language, that they no longer seem radical, but in fact, they fail whenever they are implemented, as the Greeks are currently finding out the hard way.


Nationalizing all property in the country and executing the wealthy to permanently change the very coordinates of the system as we know it is an extreme radical proposal. Adjusting tax rates and expanding social programs so that the system that currently exists can continue to function is actually conservative in nature.

Hardly. Nationalizing all property and executing the wealthy is one end of the radical spectrum (or used to be, before the Khmer Rouge expanded the definition of who was to be executed to anyone who'd lived in a city, wore glasses, was moderately well-read, or had never pushed a plow), but using the tax code to meet the same ends is not less radical, it's simply a less obviously extreme version of the radical position that the wealthy must pay their "fair share", a nebulous term that radicals never seem able or willing to define. Well, here's where you get to define it. What is the "fair share" of taxation that we ought to demand of a Bill Gates, or me, for that matter? I'm in the process of preparing my tax papers for our accountant, and I want to know whether you think that I'm contributing my "fair share" or not. Give me a number.

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 06:31 PM
http://i.imgur.com/la739.png
http://i.imgur.com/76OOL.png

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Source Wei?

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 06:33 PM
However much it takes for what, exactly? To pay for government? They don't have enough assets to cover our current expenditures.


But how much more? Should we tax a rich man until he needs the safety net because we have rendered him poor? For that matter, what is the moral claim that the poor have on the taxes of the rich?


I'm perfectly happy to debate the spending side of this argument. I am reasonable and see that cutting spending is half of this process. I think there should be a debate on what needs to be cut and how much, we should aim at lowering our expenditures overall, although this can be done through cutting in some areas and raising others.

However, there needs to be a reasonable concession that revenue is part of this too. The last decade has been a period of tax cut economics, to ignore the effects of this is to be deliberately obtuse. If you want a sustainable system you need to fund it through taxes, which after periods of large scale tax cutting may need to be raised. It's really not the end of the world to raise some taxes and make some spending cuts.




Yes, but if they went to dinner and the waiter presented him with the only check and the others informed him that he was on the hook for their dinners, regardless of what they ate, then he'd have a right to complain, wouldn't he? And after the first meal, they'd have no constraints on what they ordered, because they know that they aren't paying for it. So, once again, what is their claim on his purse?

I should've known it would be best to avoid analogies...



You talk about an equitable distribution of wealth as if wealth is just sitting there, waiting to be distributed. It isn't. It must be created, first. The factory that employs a worker wouldn't exist without the risks undergone by the owners. Why are they obligated to share that with their workers?

Because it is the workers who create it -

This is an issue of value and where it comes from. Let's take two items, a jacket and a bundle of blu-ray disks. Let's say they both have a pricetag of $60. Now clearly, in terms of use-values, these items are very different. If you are cold and you don't have a blu-ray player, then the jacket has greater use-value to you. If you live in South Texas and you get bored easily, then the blu-rays have more use-value to you. These items are qualitatively different in their use-values and cannot really be compared to one another on a consistent basis.

However, the fact that they both are worth $60 says something about them. It says there is something that is quantitatively equivalent between the two items. This equivalency is the equivalency of another form of value, exchange-value. This means that exchange value has nothing to do with their physical, qualitative use-values.

What this means, effectively, is that instead of giving someone $60, you could give them the jacket, which they exchange for the blu-ray disks, which they sell for $60. Each of these interactions are equal exchanges, because when you are trading the jacket or the disks as commodities, you are exchanging them for their exchange-values, not their use-values. It means that getting $60 worth of tradeable commodities is the same as getting $60, at the level of exchange value.

Some people might say a thing is worth only what someone will pay for it, as if value arises out of the exchange itself, but this isn't true , as can be seen in cases where it cost more to make a product that you get from selling it. If it takes $90 to produce a jacket that only sells for $60, this process doesn't work and no wealth is generated. There is actually a loss of wealth in this process. This is because a certain amount of wealth goes into the creation of the product, via the labor of the production process.

Suppose there is a city that desires 2 plants for trade which grow in equal volume. One of these plants grows plentifully just a mile away from town, while the other grows 40 miles away. If these plants were to be exchanged, the plant that grows further away would have a higher exchange value because it takes more labor and time to acquire it. More labor goes into the commodity, so it is worth more.

Of course it is far more complex than these simple examples, but this is a very basic skeletal picture of where value comes from. When the process gets larger, you get more and more interesting and complex examples that are grounded in this picture but require even greater analysis.

Profit comes from paying workers less than the exchange value of the commodity, meaning that profit and therefore wealth comes directly from workers.

It is absolutely true that the owners play a very important role, and without the owners there are no workers (in this system), but without the workers, there can be no wealth generation.

I'm going to guess you are going to try to point out some inane example to counter one sentence of this post while ignoring the vast majority of it so I'll give you the condensed version here: Owners owe a share of their wealth to their workers because it is the workers who produce the goods or services which generate profit during the process of exchange. No workers, no goods or service, no profit. Simple as that.






No, they are radical ideas that have been presented so often, in such moderate language, that they no longer seem radical, but in fact, they fail whenever they are implemented, as the Greeks are currently finding out the hard way.

Yes the Greeks the greeks the greeks the right-wings favorite country to look at.

How about we look at Germany, which has even more robust social programs, stronger labor laws, and the best economy in Europe?






Hardly. Nationalizing all property and executing the wealthy is one end of the radical spectrum (or used to be, before the Khmer Rouge expanded the definition of who was to be executed to anyone who'd lived in a city, wore glasses, was moderately well-read, or had never pushed a plow), but using the tax code to meet the same ends is not less radical, it's simply a less obviously extreme version of the radical position that the wealthy must pay their "fair share", a nebulous term that radicals never seem able or willing to define. Well, here's where you get to define it. What is the "fair share" of taxation that we ought to demand of a Bill Gates, or me, for that matter? I'm in the process of preparing my tax papers for our accountant, and I want to know whether you think that I'm contributing my "fair share" or not. Give me a number.

A fair share would be one that is proportional (or greater) to what they make, as Adam Smith said.

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 06:35 PM
Source your previous post #54 and don't ignore me Wei.

Apache
02-19-2012, 06:51 PM
Source your previous post #54 and don't ignore me Wei.Wei has no reasonable source that's why he's hiding. He's a lazy, no-good communist who wants to get what others have worked for. He thinks he's entitled to everything the rich have except the work it took them to get it. All business is one-sided, the owner's side. If he has good business model he will prosper and expand... Wei doesn't see it that way. Wei wants everything handed to him, because he was born...


Ain't that right Wei?

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 06:57 PM
Wei has no reasonable source that's why he's hiding. He's a lazy, no-good communist who wants to get what others have worked for. He thinks he's entitled to everything the rich have except the work it took them to get it. All business is one-sided, the owner's side. If he has good business model he will prosper and expand... Wei doesn't see it that way. Wei wants everything handed to him, because he was born...


Ain't that right Wei?

I have been over this with him before, he is to source his material.

Apache
02-19-2012, 07:39 PM
“It is not very unreasonable ...-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Gotta love that part... VERY... HAHAHAHAHA:biggrin-new::biggrin::biggrin-new:


NOT :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 07:39 PM
Source Wei?

Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

I believe that paper uses official government data.

Apache
02-19-2012, 07:41 PM
Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

I believe that paper uses official government data.

What? No link? Coward....

fettpett
02-19-2012, 07:43 PM
Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

I believe that paper uses official government data.

why don't you just use the link when you first make the statement, is it really that hard? :confused::rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 07:48 PM
Wei has no reasonable source that's why he's hiding. He's a lazy, no-good communist who wants to get what others have worked for. He thinks he's entitled to everything the rich have except the work it took them to get it. All business is one-sided, the owner's side. If he has good business model he will prosper and expand... Wei doesn't see it that way. Wei wants everything handed to him, because he was born...


This is exactly what the right-wing is fighting for. You summed it up nicely.

The far-right views all business as one-sided, the owner's side. That means the economy, which is comprised of businesses, is also entirely one-sided, the side of owners.

Since the top 1% (and to a lesser degree the rest of the top 10%) own far more assets than the bottom 80%, this means they believe the entire economy should be one-sided, catering to the top 5% or so while the vast majority of working people have no say, because after all, business is one-sided.

The far-right wants all economic policies to be aimed at the top 5%, because they own most of the business assets. The plebish common workers don't have a say, and shouldn't.


I, on the other hand recognize that the economy is structured around the conflicting interests between these mutually dependent groups. Owners need workers and workers need owners but their interests are conflicting. If any side gets too much power, the system begins to break down. My problem is that the system is inherently in the favor of owners, because of the way wealth is appropriated. I think a conservative position is to try to keep these forces in balance to keep the system running to the benefit of owners and workers. I think the more radical position is realizing that the system cannot be truley balanced and it will always bend more to the side of the workers so one should favor a new system all together.

What the far-right is advocating is giving all economic power to the owners who are already at an enormous advantage, as well as giving them political power. This creates a form of plutocratic authoritarianism, where a small group of wealthy elites effective own and run the system the way they see fit.

Apache
02-19-2012, 08:39 PM
This is exactly what the right-wing is fighting for. You summed it up nicely.

The far-right views all business as one-sided, the owner's side. That means the economy, which is comprised of businesses, is also entirely one-sided, the side of owners.

Since the top 1% (and to a lesser degree the rest of the top 10%) own far more assets than the bottom 80%, this means they believe the entire economy should be one-sided, catering to the top 5% or so while the vast majority of working people have no say, because after all, business is one-sided.

The far-right wants all economic policies to be aimed at the top 5%, because they own most of the business assets. The plebish common workers don't have a say, and shouldn't.


I, on the other hand recognize that the economy is structured around the conflicting interests between these mutually dependent groups. Owners need workers and workers need owners but their interests are conflicting. If any side gets too much power, the system begins to break down. My problem is that the system is inherently in the favor of owners, because of the way wealth is appropriated. I think a conservative position is to try to keep these forces in balance to keep the system running to the benefit of owners and workers. I think the more radical position is realizing that the system cannot be truley balanced and it will always bend more to the side of the workers so one should favor a new system all together.

What the far-right is advocating is giving all economic power to the owners who are already at an enormous advantage, as well as giving them political power. This creates a form of plutocratic authoritarianism, where a small group of wealthy elites effective own and run the system the way they see fit.

You are so educated that you've lost touch with reality. How is a business that benifits the owner a bad thing? It isn't. You, as a communist, can't see that. You want everything handed to you. You want someone to step in, take my hard work, and hand it to you. To that I say, FOAD. You want my intellectual property. You want my initial investment, my time, my reinvestment even though you did nothing. To that I say, FOAD. You want my sacrifice, my lost time with family to amount to a loss. What business survives working at a loss? Shall we ask Greece? Europe? Eventually our own government?


Yes Wei, all business survives to suit the owner. They're the one's that created it, to better themselves, not you not society as a whole. Do you think Gates or Jobs invented the PC/MAC thinking:"Someday some snot-nosed little commie brat is going to deride my success using my product"... No fucknut, they said: I'm gonna be rich!" Wanna know something? They took a LOT of people with them...


If you start now, and the tides are right, you could made Cuba by Sunday...

Janice
02-19-2012, 09:10 PM
Wolff, E. N. (2010). Recent trends in household wealth in the United States: Rising debt and the middle-class squeeze - an update to 2007. Working Paper No. 589. Annandale-on-Hudson, NY: The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College.

I believe that paper uses official government data.

Welcome to socialism (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf) 101. (http://www.ufevergreen.org/statement-of-support-for-occupy-wall-street-from-the-coordinating-committee-of-the-ufe/)

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 09:11 PM
You are so educated that you've lost touch with reality. How is a business that benifits the owner a bad thing? It isn't.

That's not what I said. Business always benefits the owner. What I'm saying is a business environment needs both owners and workers, and each of these groups have mutually opposed interests. If either side of this balance gets too much sway, the system tilts and begins to break. The system is never "in balance", but when it is close to it, owners and workers both benefit immensely (of course the owners always benefit more).

If you want the system to be sustainable, you need to try to keep these mutually opposed yet mutually dependent forces in balance. This is not a communist argument or even an anti-capitalist argument it's actually extremely pro-capitalist. This argument says we should try to keep the forces in balance so that our economic system can keep going. An anti-capitalist argument would be to scrap the entire system and create a new one. This is why an argument for "balance" is actually a conservative argument, because it tries to preserve the capitalist economic system.



You, as a communist, can't see that. You want everything handed to you. You want someone to step in, take my hard work, and hand it to you. To that I say, FOAD. You want my intellectual property. You want my initial investment, my time, my reinvestment even though you did nothing. To that I say, FOAD. You want my sacrifice, my lost time with family to amount to a loss. What business survives working at a loss? Shall we ask Greece? Europe? Eventually our own government?


Yes Wei, all business survives to suit the owner. They're the one's that created it, to better themselves, not you not society as a whole. Do you think Gates or Jobs invented the PC/MAC thinking:"Someday some snot-nosed little commie brat is going to deride my success using my product"... No fucknut, they said: I'm gonna be rich!" Wanna know something? They took a LOT of people with them...


If you start now, and the tides are right, you could made Cuba by Sunday...

Does this ranting make you feel better?

When you finish wailing on that strawman meet me back in reality for some grown-up talk. Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you....stupid!" stops being impressive somewhere between the 5th and 6th grade. I'm totally willing to have a calm and cool discussion about this, and I do actually concede when other people make good points, but please don't act like a child.

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 09:14 PM
Welcome to socialism (http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_589.pdf) 101. (http://www.ufevergreen.org/statement-of-support-for-occupy-wall-street-from-the-coordinating-committee-of-the-ufe/)

Do these links disprove the data? Or....do they just try to stick a label on it so you dont have to think about it anymore?

Some of the most successful nations in the world, with the best education systems, the best quality of life, the highest happiness indexes, the largest percentage of people going to college, etc. have heavy socialist elements in them.

Is Democratic Socialism the answer? No probably not, but it's not whatever boogyman you believe it to be.

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 09:18 PM
Some of the most successful nations in the world, with the best education systems, the best quality of life, the highest happiness indexes, the largest percentage of people going to college, etc. have heavy socialist elements in them.



You mean like Greece now or maybe Italy? One by one it will happen to all of them.

Janice
02-19-2012, 09:18 PM
Quotes in the article are from the GPO. (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/)

Notice their glowing report about obamas "The President's Plan for Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction." (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-112hdoc55/pdf/CDOC-112hdoc55.pdf)

Wei Wu Wei
02-19-2012, 09:20 PM
You mean like Greece now or maybe Italy? One by one it will happen to all of them.

More like Germany, and the Scandinavian nations.

An afternoon reading about the economies and recent histories of these different nations will prove otherwise.

Apache
02-19-2012, 09:41 PM
That's not what I said. Business always benefits the owner. What I'm saying is a business environment needs both owners and workers, and each of these groups have mutually opposed interests. If either side of this balance gets too much sway, the system tilts and begins to break. The system is never "in balance", but when it is close to it, owners and workers both benefit immensely (of course the owners always benefit more).

If you want the system to be sustainable, you need to try to keep these mutually opposed yet mutually dependent forces in balance. This is not a communist argument or even an anti-capitalist argument it's actually extremely pro-capitalist. This argument says we should try to keep the forces in balance so that our economic system can keep going. An anti-capitalist argument would be to scrap the entire system and create a new one. This is why an argument for "balance" is actually a conservative argument, because it tries to preserve the capitalist economic system.




Does this ranting make you feel better?

When you finish wailing on that strawman meet me back in reality for some grown-up talk. Putting your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you....stupid!" stops being impressive somewhere between the 5th and 6th grade. I'm totally willing to have a calm and cool discussion about this, and I do actually concede when other people make good points, but please don't act like a child.

I've heard you loud and clear. You are a communist. You have made it perfectly clear that you are happy to change the United States instead of moving to where your preferred system exists. The obstacle in the way of America's recovery is the goverment you want in place. The nanny-state, you can't live without us, government...


Get the fuck outta my way :wink:

Rockntractor
02-19-2012, 09:49 PM
Get the fuck outta my way :wink:

http://planetsmilies.net/ill-violated-dead-smiley-9436.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

Apache
02-19-2012, 10:05 PM
http://planetsmilies.net/ill-violated-dead-smiley-9436.gif (http://planetsmilies.net)

DAYUM :eek:

Did I do that :confused:

fettpett
02-19-2012, 10:46 PM
More like Germany, and the Scandinavian nations.

An afternoon reading about the economies and recent histories of these different nations will prove otherwise.


lets put this in an easy to understand way, the US has had a 3% GDP growth on average, EU Countries have been LUCKY to get 1.5-2%, they would love to have the growth the US has had. Our tax policies have been the prime reason, particularly since Reagan and Bush cut and simplified the tax code.

MrsSmith
02-20-2012, 12:12 AM
More like Germany, and the Scandinavian nations.

An afternoon reading about the economies and recent histories of these different nations will prove otherwise.

Hey, WW, does Arroyo thank you kindly when you sail into threads and save his butt for him? He snarks and drowns until you barge in with your unsourced claims. Your essays and half-correct info are always irritating enough that everyone forgets that Arroyo still hasn't answered any questions, provided any facts, or done anything but look down his nose at everyone, just as though that were enough to prove his point. After all, peons shouldn't question their "betters," right?

Odysseus
02-20-2012, 12:22 AM
I'm perfectly happy to debate the spending side of this argument. I am reasonable and see that cutting spending is half of this process. I think there should be a debate on what needs to be cut and how much, we should aim at lowering our expenditures overall, although this can be done through cutting in some areas and raising others.

However, there needs to be a reasonable concession that revenue is part of this too. The last decade has been a period of tax cut economics, to ignore the effects of this is to be deliberately obtuse. If you want a sustainable system you need to fund it through taxes, which after periods of large scale tax cutting may need to be raised. It's really not the end of the world to raise some taxes and make some spending cuts.
Raising other areas isn't realistic. We don't have the revenues. We don't even have the revenues to pay the interest on what we already owe. Spending more on anything that isn't absolutely critical, like preventing the next world war, is absurd.

I should've known it would be best to avoid analogies...
Especially when they backfire on you. Care to address the substance of the argument?


Because it is the workers who create it -
No, the workers create parts of the whole, for which they are compensated. The factory didn't spring into existence spontaneously, it was financed by investors. The workers didn't start working until it was already in place.


This is an issue of value and where it comes from. Let's take two items, a jacket and a bundle of blu-ray disks. Let's say they both have a pricetag of $60. Now clearly, in terms of use-values, these items are very different. If you are cold and you don't have a blu-ray player, then the jacket has greater use-value to you. If you live in South Texas and you get bored easily, then the blu-rays have more use-value to you. These items are qualitatively different in their use-values and cannot really be compared to one another on a consistent basis.

However, the fact that they both are worth $60 says something about them. It says there is something that is quantitatively equivalent between the two items. This equivalency is the equivalency of another form of value, exchange-value. This means that exchange value has nothing to do with their physical, qualitative use-values.

What this means, effectively, is that instead of giving someone $60, you could give them the jacket, which they exchange for the blu-ray disks, which they sell for $60. Each of these interactions are equal exchanges, because when you are trading the jacket or the disks as commodities, you are exchanging them for their exchange-values, not their use-values. It means that getting $60 worth of tradeable commodities is the same as getting $60, at the level of exchange value.

Some people might say a thing is worth only what someone will pay for it, as if value arises out of the exchange itself, but this isn't true , as can be seen in cases where it cost more to make a product that you get from selling it. If it takes $90 to produce a jacket that only sells for $60, this process doesn't work and no wealth is generated. There is actually a loss of wealth in this process. This is because a certain amount of wealth goes into the creation of the product, via the labor of the production process.
The economic illiteracy that you display is consistently astonishing. There are numerous cases in which people sell products at a loss, because there is no demand for them. The "exchange value" varies from transaction to transaction, because the value of a commodity differs between the producer and the consumer. If I produce a commodity and put it up for sale, I value the money that I will receive more than I do the commodity, while the purchaser values the commodity more than the money in his pocket. If we didn't have differing views of the value of the commodity, no sale would occur. The price isn't the value of the commodity, it's the mechanism by which the commodity is exchanged.


Suppose there is a city that desires 2 plants for trade which grow in equal volume. One of these plants grows plentifully just a mile away from town, while the other grows 40 miles away. If these plants were to be exchanged, the plant that grows further away would have a higher exchange value because it takes more labor and time to acquire it. More labor goes into the commodity, so it is worth more.
Again, illiteracy. If the the city is expanding its population, and the plant grows equally well in both places, real estate will be a premium closer to the town, while it is more cost effective to grow the plant further away and build housing in the closer area. This describes just two of the potential interests that may conflict in the use of the closest plot of land, but there will always be more, because different people have different interests, and the purpose of prices is to demonstrate the most efficient use of a commodity. Commodities, i.e., supplies, are limited, while demand is infinite. This is why prices fluctuate constantly, and any attempt to define them in terms of labor value is doomed from the start.


Of course it is far more complex than these simple examples, but this is a very basic skeletal picture of where value comes from. When the process gets larger, you get more and more interesting and complex examples that are grounded in this picture but require even greater analysis.

Profit comes from paying workers less than the exchange value of the commodity, meaning that profit and therefore wealth comes directly from workers.
No, profit comes from exchanging a commodity for more than it costs to make it, but the exchange value is meaningless, because there is no such thing. To go back to your analogy of DVDs and jackets, let's assume that the fixed cost of producing a jacket is the same as a case of DVDs, that is, $60. I have no interest in a case of the same DVD, therefore I might buy one for a few bucks, but I won't buy a dozen. OTOH, I might need a jacket. The DVD seller, seeing that he is going to take a loss, might cut his price to mitigate that loss, while the seller of the jacket might raise his price during a cold snap. In other words, the demand for the products determines the price, not some abstract value based on the amount of labor involved.


It is absolutely true that the owners play a very important role, and without the owners there are no workers (in this system), but without the workers, there can be no wealth generation.
And yet, Microsoft managed to generate quite a bit of wealth before it began hiring large numbers of workers. Go figure.


I'm going to guess you are going to try to point out some inane example to counter one sentence of this post while ignoring the vast majority of it so I'll give you the condensed version here: Owners owe a share of their wealth to their workers because it is the workers who produce the goods or services which generate profit during the process of exchange. No workers, no goods or service, no profit. Simple as that.
You guess as wrong as your analysis. Owners trade wages for labor, and laborers trade labor for wages. If a laborer doesn't value his wages more than his time, he doesn't sell his time. If an owner doesn't value the time more than the wages, he doesn't part with the wages. Simple as that.

Yes the Greeks the greeks the greeks the right-wings favorite country to look at.
And the left's least favorite. Wonder why that is...


How about we look at Germany, which has even more robust social programs, stronger labor laws, and the best economy in Europe?
Germany today is where Greece was two decades ago. It will fail the same way, it's just going to take longer. As Thatcher said, the problem with socialism is that eventually, you run out of other people's money. Today, Greece is learning that. Tomorrow, Germany will.


A fair share would be one that is proportional (or greater) to what they make, as Adam Smith said.

Well, that settles that. When I fill out my tax forms, I'll simply tell the IRS that I owe a proportional or greater share of what I make than the next guy. That ought to satisfy them.

I want a number, Wei. I want to know what percentage of my income the government is entitled to. Not some abstract BS that makes you feel good, but an actual hard number, because every nickel that I make represents a piece of my life, a period of time that, once done, is gone forever. I get a fixed amount of money every month, and that represents the time that I spend at my job. How much of my time, how much of my life, is the government entitled to take from me, in the name of social justice or fairness or whatever you want to call it? Give me a number, or go away.

Apache
02-20-2012, 12:43 AM
Give me a number, or go away.

Look at his sig line...
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
-Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

He only wants to be moderately unreasonable. To that end he wants only conservative rich to pay more than in that proportion. The communist Left can have all theirs no questions, or demands for that matter, asked...:rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-20-2012, 02:27 AM
Look at his sig line...

He only wants to be moderately unreasonable. To that end he wants only conservative rich to pay more than in that proportion. The communist Left can have all theirs no questions, or demands for that matter, asked...:rolleyes:

He will never provide a number because he can't, just as Arroyo can't. Once they admit that people own what they create, then they lose the argument. Once they admit that the purpose of taxation is to fund the necessary functions of government, then they cannot continue to argue for using the power of government to impose equality. Redistribution of wealth from rich to poor isn't a legitimate government function, any more than redistribution of food away from obese people, or redistribution of sex away from attractive people is.

Rockntractor
02-20-2012, 03:07 AM
, or redistribution of sex away from attractive people is.

Perhaps this one could be discussed a little more, I think there is room to compromise.:confused:

fettpett
02-20-2012, 11:35 AM
Perhaps this one could be discussed a little more, I think there is room to compromise.:confused:

isn't that what beer is for though?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iUOOudibOUQ/TaMTKK--tYI/AAAAAAAAFCM/5zsVPpgN5Zw/s1600/beer+goggles+drinking+drunk+hot+chicks+babes+girls +games+fun+motivational+posters+tequila+shots.jpg

AmPat
02-20-2012, 01:59 PM
[QUOTE=Wei Wu Wei;484523]You're looking a specific percentage but the correct answer is they should be taxed however much it takes.
"Takes" for what comrade?:rolleyes:

You state that the wealthy pay the lions share of certain taxes, which is true, but that's because they also own the vast majority of the nation's wealth. This would be like a guy going to dinner with five friends, and being outraged that he has to pay a larger percentage of the bill, because he ordered $80 worth of steak and lobster with a $300 bottle of wine, while the five friends ate $10 appetizers and water. Of course he has to pay more back. They also create the entire amount of wealth and jobs.

If the system were modestly different, resulting in a more equitable distribution of wealth (and no this does not mean everyone is paid the exact same), Then what does it mean comrade? Just a little more equity? How about just a little more followed by a little more? Who determines the "CORRECT" state approved amount?

These are fairly modest ideas that most nations consider rather conservative in nature. Not me comrade. I consider it extreme and moving the nation toward communism and degradation.

It's only within an extremely desperate far-right ideological framework that these ideas appear radical. Those same "extremely desperate far-right ideologues" that want to honor the actual words in the Constitution? How radical? The nerve of those people to actually want to preserve the nation. :rolleyes:

Nationalizing all property in the country and executing the wealthy to permanently change the very coordinates of the system as we know it is an extreme radical proposal. Adjusting tax rates and expanding social programs so that the system that currently exists can continue to function is actually conservative in nature.
No, continuing progressive socialism is not the original state of the Union. Expanding those stupid and unconstitutional programs is more socialism. As for "adjusting tax rates?" How about we tax everybody at the same rate as the top 1% Would that suit you?

Hawkgirl
02-21-2012, 12:07 AM
You're looking a specific percentage but the correct answer is they should be taxed however much it takes.

If we take a scientific look at what works and what doesn't, focus on efficiency and effectiveness rather than profit, we can have robust social programs that work for not much more than we are paying now. Adam Smith, in his foundational text on free market economics, The Wealth of Nations, explained that the wealthy should pay more than their proportional share of their wealth in taxes to sustain the social needs of the society within which they come upon their wealth.

.


WW3, You contradict yourself. You can not have "robust social programs" without the wealthy, who become wealthy through PROFITS. Without profits, something you seem to dislike with a passion, there would be no social programs. If you continue to chop the wealthy at the knees and PUNISH them for being profitable, you will cease to receive the BENEFIT they provide. You seem to think money falls from the sky and not that it is EARNED. You basically want to reward success with pain. What do you think the outcome of that will be?

NJCardFan
02-21-2012, 02:04 AM
WW3, You contradict yourself. You can not have "robust social programs" without the wealthy, who become wealthy through PROFITS. Without profits, something you seem to dislike with a passion, there would be no social programs. If you continue to chop the wealthy at the knees and PUNISH them for being profitable, you will cease to receive the BENEFIT they provide. You seem to think money falls from the sky and not that it is EARNED. You basically want to reward success with pain. What do you think the outcome of that will be?

This reminds me of an old saying about what happens when there's no one left to pull the cart.