Spread the wealth?
Kat
understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for McCain
to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
their own for long enough.
Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
Clinton fan. Just the facts.
Dale Houstman
This entire argument over "wealth distribution" is just fodder for the
rubes. The government is ALWAYS in the business of wealth distribution.
Without it we would all be up shit's creek without a paddle. For just
one instance among many: if it weren't for government support of
agriculture (taking a city dweller's hard-earned pay and giving it to
farmers), food would be prohibitively expensive for many people. Not a
good thing for civilization that. And this isn't even counting in all
the costs that would bury us if there were no roads, no schools, no fire
departments, and no Social Security. The question has NEVER been "should
we redistribute wealth" but rather "who should pay the most, and who
should receive the help?" - we recently witnessed the largest single
redistribution of wealth upward in the (phoney) guise of a bailout. A
week after 700 billion dollars were gifted to banks, 70 billion of it
had already found its way into individual CEOs' hands, as bonuses. A few
months down the line, it will all be gone, and those bastard beggars
will come to the door again. I suggest we hang'em from the lampposts and
pelt their corpses with eggs. But I suspect we will just pony up and get
ridden hard again. Yee hah!
dmh
retired54
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:4904B529...@skypoint.com...
It was just one of the stupid remarks made in this campaign. Take your pick.
The most heartless and stupid thing that was said was "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"
by McStupid. Followed by:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2v8cuQTVO8
McCain is a monster.
olddog
RS
One of the crowning achievements of the far-right was essentially
convincing poor people that poor people suck. So you have poor/middle
class railing on about how the poor/middle class caused the Wall St.
collapse, when few would have even understood what was going on on
Wall St, much less being to blame for high level monetary scams or
lobbying for deregulation.
This 'spread the wealth' thing has obviously not registered for what
it is. Well, propaganda is what it is, but if you say "the rich
deserve to keep all the money!", that may not make an effective
rallying cry for McCain. If 'redistribution' is stated in terms of tax
cuts, it sounds like a good thing, but no, this couldn't be someone
trying to get the poor/middle back on track--instead this is
communism.
At this point, I think most are now numb to the onslaught of
'anti-American', 'commie', 'traitor', etc. Amazing that those tired
tactics are still working at all, considering.
Snit
4904B529...@skypoint.com on 10/26/08 11:21 AM:
>
>
> Kat wrote:
>> Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this? Yeah, I can
>> understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for McCain
>> to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
>> their own for long enough.
>> Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
>> Clinton fan. Just the facts.
>>
>>
>
> This entire argument over "wealth distribution" is just fodder for the
> rubes. The government is ALWAYS in the business of wealth distribution.
The wealthy benefit *greatly* from the government. For them to refuse to
pay back even a part of the benefits they receive, when they clearly can, is
absurd.
This is true not just for the wealthy. Why not have those on welfare pay
back at least a portion of what they get *if* they later can (though not if
they can just barely).
This would not only help recoup some fraction of the costs of the programs
but would also allow people to maintain or regain lost self respect.
> Without it we would all be up shit's creek without a paddle. For just
> one instance among many: if it weren't for government support of
> agriculture (taking a city dweller's hard-earned pay and giving it to
> farmers), food would be prohibitively expensive for many people. Not a
> good thing for civilization that. And this isn't even counting in all
> the costs that would bury us if there were no roads, no schools, no fire
> departments, and no Social Security. The question has NEVER been "should
> we redistribute wealth" but rather "who should pay the most, and who
> should receive the help?" - we recently witnessed the largest single
> redistribution of wealth upward in the (phoney) guise of a bailout. A
> week after 700 billion dollars were gifted to banks, 70 billion of it
> had already found its way into individual CEOs' hands, as bonuses. A few
> months down the line, it will all be gone, and those bastard beggars
> will come to the door again. I suggest we hang'em from the lampposts and
> pelt their corpses with eggs. But I suspect we will just pony up and get
> ridden hard again. Yee hah!
>
> dmh
>
--
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how
to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not
beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller
Dale Houstman
Most heartless? Maybe. Most stupid? Too much to pick from...
dmh
queenie
>Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this? Yeah, I can
>understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for McCain
>to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
>their own for long enough.
He was against it before he was for it. Was he a socialist then or is
he an opportunist now?
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/006960.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/17/mccain-wealthy-taxes/
He was against dirty campaigning in 2000 and now he's for it. Do you
need to see links showing that he condemned dirty politics in 2000?
--
Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts.
Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one’s lifetime.
- Mark Twain
John Black
> Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
> Clinton fan.
Based on what? Would Hillary Clinton really be a senator and a presidential
candidate had not her husband been the president? Did Sarah Palin's husband
have anything to do with her ascendency to governor of a state? I have
respect for Hillary and don't want to take anything away from her but it
seems people can't give any credit at all to Palin and what she has
accomplished *on her own*.
John Black
olddog
"John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.236ecc468...@news.motzarella.org...
Which accomplishment are you referring to:
Making a complete ass of herself on national TV or destroying any chance
McCain has at the presidency?
olddog
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> stated in post
> 4904B529...@skypoint.com on 10/26/08 11:21 AM:
>
> >
> >
> > Kat wrote:
> >> Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this? Yeah, I can
> >> understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for
> >> McCain
> >> to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
> >> their own for long enough.
> >> Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
> >> Clinton fan. Just the facts.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > This entire argument over "wealth distribution" is just fodder for the
> > rubes. The government is ALWAYS in the business of wealth distribution.
>
> The wealthy benefit *greatly* from the government. For them to refuse to
> pay back even a part of the benefits they receive, when they clearly can, is
> absurd.
How much more should they pay in your opinion?
"The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent
of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars
collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of
taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's
income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes.
That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of
federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns".
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23440.html
Another article you and ol' Dale here (who looks to be almost as clueless as you
are) will have fun with:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Dale Houstman
Spender wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 13:21:29 -0500, Dale Houstman <dm...@skypoint.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>This entire argument over "wealth distribution" is just fodder for the
>>rubes. The government is ALWAYS in the business of wealth distribution.
>>Without it we would all be up shit's creek without a paddle. For just
>>one instance among many: if it weren't for government support of
>>agriculture (taking a city dweller's hard-earned pay and giving it to
>>farmers), food would be prohibitively expensive for many people. Not a
>>good thing for civilization that. And this isn't even counting in all
>
>
> Speaking of rubes... I assume you had no idea that over half of agriculture
> subsidy checks are delivered to city addresses. Doctors and lawyers get a
> sweet return from investing in farm land. Quite often there is nothing
> grown on the land.
Yes - I am aware that corruption exists. But that isn't my point -
corruption exists in private business as much or more than it does in
public business - but that only reinforces my point: that socialism for
the rich is a reality, and that wealth distribution is an accomplished
fact, not a matter of some oncoming socialist dystopia. Thanks for the
reaffirmation. And the fact remains that even this inefficient system of
government wealth redistribution has obvious benefits for everyone,
while pure giveaways to corporations merely fatten accounts in the Caymans.
>
> Agriculture subsidies do not keep food from being prohibitively expensive.
> The free market does that.
That is simply a lie. The "free market" charges as much as it can get
for any product/resource. Since it has already proven itself quite
capable of charging U.S. consumers too much for any given item
(pharmaceuticals for instance, where the U.S. government went out of its
way to make certain we could not negotiate prices - which really keeps
the prices down), then it is strange that people in the U.S. pay so
little for food. The "free market" would sell you your own skin if it
weren't restrained. Even that little troll Greenspan has finally
admitted what many of us always knew: that huge centers of wealth will
not restrain themselves, even at the risk of destroying themselves.
Because there is money to be made. And that "agricultural aid" is not
simply the much maligned "subsidies" but an entire panoply of
regulations, loans, and agencies dedicated to keeping an affordable food
supply. Why? Out of concern for the poor consumer? No - because a
starving populace is a dangerous populace. Pure self-interest...
dmh
RichL
It's called progressive taxation, and it's been in practice in the US
for decades.
Do you really believe that people who earn $20,000 a year should pay
taxes at the same rate as those who earn over $5,000,000?
Snit
s5GdnQUGleVhuJjU...@supernews.com on 10/26/08 7:23 PM:
...
>>> The wealthy benefit *greatly* from the government. For them to
>>> refuse to pay back even a part of the benefits they receive, when
>>> they clearly can, is absurd.
>>
>> How much more should they pay in your opinion?
>>
>> "The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned
>> 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out
>> of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3
>> percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned
>> approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by
>> AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means
>> the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of
>> federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax
>> returns".
>>
>> http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/250.html
>> http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23440.html
>>
>>
>> Another article you and ol' Dale here (who looks to be almost as
>> clueless as you are) will have fun with:
>>
>>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
>
> It's called progressive taxation, and it's been in practice in the US
> for decades.
>
> Do you really believe that people who earn $20,000 a year should pay
> taxes at the same rate as those who earn over $5,000,000?
And do not forget that many of the wealthy have their earnings tied up in
corporations which are, legally, treated as a separate identity. The top
wealthiest corporations pay much less in taxes (as a percentage). Not sure
who Carroll thinks he is fooling...
New York Times 9/23/04
-----
The study, Corporate Income Taxes in the Bush Years, surveyed
public filings by 275 of the nation's largest and most
profitable companies, based on revenue from the Fortune 500
list of 2004. The 275 companies reported pretax profits from
operations in the United States of $1.1 trillion from 2001
through 2003, the study said, yet reported to the Internal
Revenue Service and paid taxes on half that amount.
...
According to the study, some 28 corporations paid no taxes
from 2001 to 2003, despite having profits in the period of
nearly $45 billion.
Industry sectors that paid the lowest taxes or no taxes
included aerospace and military, telecommunications,
transportation, and industrial and farm equipment.
...
The current study seemed to echo government data. Commerce
Department figures showed that pretax corporate profit rose
26 percent from 2001 to 2003 but that corporate tax payments
fell 21 percent.
Corporate taxes as a share of the national economy are at
their lowest sustained level since World War II, the study
said, and financed only 6 percent of government expenses in
the last two fiscal years.
...
The current study attributed lower corporate payments in part
to legislation supported by President Bush and enacted by
Congress in 2002 that increased accelerated depreciation...
-----
<http://www.ejnet.org/rachel/rehw422.htm>
-----
This year, taxpayers will spend $51 billion in direct
subsidies to corporations and lose another $53.3 billion in
tax breaks for corporations, according to the Office of
Management and Budget and Congress's Joint Committee on
Taxation. This $104.3 billion give-away to businesses
contrasts with the $75.1 billion total cost of all federal
welfare programs for individuals, including help for the
blind and deaf, drug and alcohol treatment, assistance to the
handicapped and elderly, care for the mentally retarded,
children's vaccination and immunization programs, food stamps
(50% of which go to children [4]), and so on. [5] Our federal
welfare programs favor corporations more than people.
-----
Steve's attempt to make it look like the wealthy are somehow getting a raw
deal here is, well, laughable. Repeatedly Steve has been shown these things
- and yet he refuses to acknowledge them.
--
What do you call people who are afraid of Santa Claus? Claustrophobic.
WB
If Gen. Colin Powell doesn't mind sharing the wealth,
why should McPlain.
Elvis Kabong
From Daily Kos:
Today, about 20 percent of America's children - 13.5 percent of all
Americans - live in what is a very flawed federal measure of poverty whose
parameters haven't been changed in more than four decades.
Some 28 million Americans now receive some amount of help from the Food
Stamp program, known since the beginning of this month as the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program. Soup kitchens everywhere are in tough straits.
That's because food prices have increased at a time when the numbers of
people in need have risen and the people who donate, hampered by economic
difficulties of their own, are contributing less.
At the other end of the scale, crunched state budgets mean reduced aid to
higher education at a time when still-rising tuition costs are making it
ever more difficult for people at the lower ends of the economic scale to do
what every politician, social reformer and statistic says is a way out of
those lower ends: more schooling.
As economists Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz observed in The Race between
Education and Technology: Sixty years ago, the average tuition at a private
college was about 14 percent of the median family income, 4 percent at a
public college. These percentages for both types dropped still more until
1980. At that time they began a steep rise. By 2005, the average public
college cost 11 percent of median family income, a whopping 45 percent for
private colleges. There is financial aid, but not enough, and the system
"can be harder to crack than Fort Knox," Katz and Goldin write.
Consequently, an America that once led in the percentage of college
graduates each year now falls into the middle of the pack of developing
countries, and is dropping.
According to the United Nations Habitat survey released last week, there is
growing inequality in U.S. cities that could lead to social unrest and
increased premature mortality. The survey of 120 cities found New York to be
the ninth most unequal in the world. Inequality levels in Atlanta, New
Orleans, Washington, and Miami were similar to those in Nairobi, Kenya and
Abidjan, Ivory Coast, levels that are internationally recognized as the
"alert" line used to warn governments. And not just cities:
"In western New York state nearly 40% of the black, Hispanic and
mixed-race households earned less than $15,000 compared with 15% of white
households. The life expectancy of African-Americans in the US is about the
same as that of people living in China and some states of India, despite the
fact that the US is far richer than the other two countries," it said. ...
"High levels of inequality can lead to negative social, economic and
political consequences that have a destabilising effect on societies," said
the report. "[They] create social and political fractures that can develop
into social unrest and insecurity."
The Gini index (or coefficient) is a measure of income inequality, with 0
meaning everyone has the same income and 1 meaning one person has all income
and everyone else has none. As Elizabeth Gudrais noted recently in Harvard
Magazine's Unequal America:
For the United States, the Gini coefficient has risen from .35 in 1965 to
.44 today. On the per-capita GDP scale, our neighbors are Sweden,
Switzerland, and the U.K.; on the Gini scale, our neighbors include Sri
Lanka, Mali, and Russia.
Meanwhile, we've got John McCain and Sean Hannity and a whole rancid cabal
of the like-minded - all of them beneficiaries of nearly three decades of
redistribution of wealth upwards - bellyaching over expressions like
"spreading the wealth." People who never imagine or care that when some
Americans talk about visiting their broker these days, they mean pawn.
Those some are becoming more numerous as a result of declining earnings.
Real weekly wages (real: meaning adjusted for inflation) in the United
States rose during every decade from 1830 to 1970. But since 1973, it's been
mostly a downhill slide, with the exception of the late '90s.
1964: $686
1974: $714
1984: $632
1994: $589
2004: $630
2008: $612
What this doesn't show is the growing gap between low and middle and,
especially, between low-middle and high-wage earners. Nor does it show the
effects in other ways. The fact that families met the lowered wages by
having the "bread-winner" take a second or third job, or having another
family member, usually female, find work outside the home. While this has
both social and economic benefits, it also created problem, among them
higher divorce rates, which, in turn, raised the poverty rate for single
women, especially single women with children. People also met the reduced
real wages problem by borrowing more, or putting daily expenses on credit
cards. Consequently, some 15 percent of after-tax personal income now repays
debt. Many middle-class people dealt with falling incomes by extracting
accumulated equity from their homes. All this merely delayed the structural
effects of falling income.
At the top end of the scale, things were moving in the other direction.
As pointed out a year ago by Greg Ip in the Wall Street Journal:
The richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record,
surpassing the highs reached in the 1990s bull market, and underlining the
divergence of economic fortunes blamed for fueling anxiety among American
workers.
The wealthiest 1% of Americans earned 21.2% of all income in 2005,
according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. That is up sharply
from 19% in 2004, and surpasses the previous high of 20.8% set in 2000, at
the peak of the previous bull market in stocks.
The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004 and a
bit less than their 13% share in 2000.
Serfin' USA
RS
wrote:
Progressive taxation was one of the precepts of the founding fathers:
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
"to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
"higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
"rise." Thomas Jefferson
Of course many of the loons in recent crossposts would be accusing
Jefferson of being a communist if he were around today, but
Jefferson's vision for the US was based on a strong, well educated
middle class. He believed that free education, progressive taxation,
and regulation were essential for achieving that. Jefferson equated
unbridled, unregulated corporatism to oppressive government, and was
convinced that it would weaken the middle class, and therefore the
country.
Anyone who insists that there is some inequity in ratiometric taxation
should consider that there is also inequity in income. A CEO's yearly
income can be 200 times that of an employee. In the 'flat tax/fair's
fair" world, I suppose that means that he works 200 times as hard, or
is 200 times as smart, or something like that. <g> IOW, if someone is
lucky enough to be earning $380,000 a year, they should count their
blessings.
Steve Carroll
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm well aware of the well known socialist tenet of progressive taxation.
> Do you really believe that people who earn $20,000 a year should pay
> taxes at the same rate as those who earn over $5,000,000?
Gee, could you miss the point any more than you already have?
Hint: If you're going to address the post, how about answering the question I
asked?
"How much more should they pay in your opinion?"
I'm looking for percentages here. We have half the workers paying more than 97%
of the taxes... how much is enough? 100%?
Snit has whined endlessly that the "wealthy" don't pay their fair share of
taxes... so I'm asking him... how much is "fair".
Snit won't answer... he never does.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
People shouldn't be allowed to make *investments* now? Is that your real bitch
here, Snit? The tax laws are what they are, if you don't like them write your
congressman... but good luck taxing corporations without having it passed on to
you (that's how this game works, egghead;)
> The top
> wealthiest corporations pay much less in taxes (as a percentage). Not sure
> who Carroll thinks he is fooling...
Not trying to fool anyone... just asking you a question you keep running from
while you babble on about corporations... *again*.
Snit
ogfag4djr3dli39q2...@4ax.com on 10/26/08 9:12 PM:
...
>> Another article you and ol' Dale here (who looks to be almost as clueless as
>> you are) will have fun with:
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
>>
>
> Progressive taxation was one of the precepts of the founding fathers:
>
> "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
> "to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
> "higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
> "rise." Thomas Jefferson
Well, there you have it, Thomas Jefferson was a
Socialist-Communist-Marxist-America-Hater. :)
>
> Of course many of the loons in recent crossposts would be accusing
> Jefferson of being a communist if he were around today, but
> Jefferson's vision for the US was based on a strong, well educated
> middle class.
Many are against that - an educated populace is harder to control and harder
to fool. Steve, for example, has claimed that teaching is not a "real job",
though he later back pedaled and claimed that it was only not a "real job"
for one person who he had *no* idea how good or bad of a job they were doing
in their classroom!
> He believed that free education, progressive taxation,
> and regulation were essential for achieving that. Jefferson equated
> unbridled, unregulated corporatism to oppressive government, and was
> convinced that it would weaken the middle class, and therefore the
> country.
>
> Anyone who insists that there is some inequity in ratiometric taxation
> should consider that there is also inequity in income. A CEO's yearly
> income can be 200 times that of an employee. In the 'flat tax/fair's
> fair" world, I suppose that means that he works 200 times as hard, or
> is 200 times as smart, or something like that. <g> IOW, if someone is
> lucky enough to be earning $380,000 a year, they should count their
> blessings.
And their government benefits! :)
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Snit
...
>> Another article you and ol' Dale here (who looks to be almost as clueless as
>> you are) will have fun with:
>>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
>>
>
> Progressive taxation was one of the precepts of the founding fathers:
>
> "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
> "to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
> "higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
> "rise." Thomas Jefferson
"I'm well aware of the well known socialist tenet of
progressive taxation."
- Steve Carroll
Yeah, Steve, Jefferson was a well known socialist. LOL!
--
"Uh... ask me after we ship the next version of Windows [laughs] then I'll
be more open to give you a blunt answer." - Bill Gates
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/gates/>
RichL
Obama's proposal to roll back the Bush cuts for those earning over
$250,000 is a good start.
Snit
...
>>>> Another article you and ol' Dale here (who looks to be almost as
>>>> clueless as you are) will have fun with:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
>>>
>>> It's called progressive taxation, and it's been in practice in the US
>>> for decades.
>>
>> I'm well aware of the well known socialist tenet of progressive
>> taxation.
>>
>>> Do you really believe that people who earn $20,000 a year should pay
>>> taxes at the same rate as those who earn over $5,000,000?
>>
>> Gee, could you miss the point any more than you already have?
>>
>> Hint: If you're going to address the post, how about answering the
>> question I asked?
>>
>> "How much more should they pay in your opinion?"
>>
>> I'm looking for percentages here. We have half the workers paying
>> more than 97% of the taxes... how much is enough? 100%?
>>
>> Snit has whined endlessly that the "wealthy" don't pay their fair
>> share of taxes... so I'm asking him... how much is "fair".
>>
>> Snit won't answer... he never does.
>
> Obama's proposal to roll back the Bush cuts for those earning over
> $250,000 is a good start.
First, let's dispense with Steve Carroll's ignorant claim that the wealthy
are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle
class. Warren Buffett has famously noted that he pays a lower tax rate than
his secretary. Buffet is the third richest man in the world - and he lives
in the US and pays, he says, 17.7% on the $46 million he made in a single
year. If you include all of the taxes on a person's income, a middle class
person almost surely will pay more than that! And that is someone who, he
claims, is not *trying* to avoid taxes... and there, really, is no reason to
doubt him. Now imagine these people who do have off-shore shelters,
multiple corporations as shelters, etc. Complete and utter rubbish to say
these ultra-wealthy are paying their fair share, at least in terms of paying
a *percentage* of their income.
Oh, and before Steve whines that Buffett is, somehow, in a special case
where he is not paying much in taxes, as a percent, he also issued the
following challenge:
Išll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes
400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate
including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will
be less than the average of their receptionists.
When Steve can show me who won that bet he can talk about how sad it is for
the ultra-wealthy to have to pay such high tax percentages.
So, Steve, if you want to know how much I think the Forbes 400 types should
pay in taxes, why not *start* with having them pay as much as their
secretaries do! We can talk from there!
For more info see here:
<http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-p
aying-my-fair-share/>.
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
McGarnagle
wrote:
>
>Obama's proposal to roll back the Bush cuts for those earning over
>$250,000 is a good start.
>
And raising taxes on everyone else will be what follows.
Everyone will face higher taxes period.
Lil Rich thinks Obama is gonna spread his fairy dust and everything
will be ok.
You gotta love gullible people who believe everything politicians say.
McGarnagle
Wow, another blind bat.
Hillary is just like Kerry and all other libs who flip flop with every
poll.
Palin has no equal and tells it like it is, that's why libs hate her.
They are scared to death of change in Washington and want libs like
Biden to continue what they've been doing the last 50 years.
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> Steve, for example, has claimed that teaching is not a "real job",
And you'll be showing where I said this any minute now, too. LOL!
> though he later back pedaled and claimed that it was only not a "real job"
> for one person
I didn't back pedal... and yes, that person is you.
> who he had *no* idea how good or bad of a job they were doing
> in their classroom!
A "real job" is something you do full time, Snit... not one hour a week... you
know, like you were doing when I made the statement. Were you even teaching for
that hour? Or was that a lie, too?
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> "RS" <R...@sorrynospam.com> stated in post
> ogfag4djr3dli39q2...@4ax.com on 10/26/08 9:12 PM:
>
> ...
> >> Another article you and ol' Dale here (who looks to be almost as clueless
> >> as
> >> you are) will have fun with:
> >>
> >> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121659695380368965.html?mod=djemEditorialPa
> >> ge
> >>
> >
> > Progressive taxation was one of the precepts of the founding fathers:
> >
> > "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
> > "to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
> > "higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
> > "rise." Thomas Jefferson
>
> "I'm well aware of the well known socialist tenet of
> progressive taxation."
> - Steve Carroll
>
> Yeah, Steve, Jefferson was a well known socialist. LOL!
Nice shuffling of context, Snit... but I'm referring to a tenet of post war
(WWII), modern socialist efforts:
"The post-war social democrat governments introduced social reform and wealth
redistribution via state welfare and taxation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
Lemme guess... you're going to argue that the form of "taxation" being referred
to here in order to accomplish "wealth redistribution" is not a "progressive"
form of taxation? Perhaps you do not know what the word "tenet" means;)
By the way, I realize you have very little education in such matters so I'll
help you along a bit here... there actually *are* some historians who refer to
Jefferson as a proto-socialist:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_1/18_1_2.pdf
John C. Randolph
> Without it we would all be up shit's creek without a paddle. For just
> one instance among many: if it weren't for government support of
> agriculture (taking a city dweller's hard-earned pay and giving it to
> farmers), food would be prohibitively expensive for many people.
Bullshit.
Government interference in agriculture has been keeping food prices up
since the days when FDR first got the bright idea to plow crops under
and slaughter cattle and just bury them to reduce the amount of meat
available.
To this day, billions of our tax dollars are spent to keep cropland out
of production. In the last couple of decades, the government has also
been spending our tax money on bribing corn farmers to produce ethanol,
despite the fact that it still isn't cost competitive with petroleum as
a fuel.
I don't know where you're getting your "information", but you've
swallowed it hook, line, sinker, rod, reel, basket, hipwaders, hat, and
copy of Angling Times.
-jcr
Steve Carroll
He's not getting information... he's getting talking points;)
Steve Carroll
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
I was looking for a percentage to go with that cutoff point, Rich.
> First, let's dispense with Steve Carroll's ignorant claim that the wealthy
> are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle
> class. Warren Buffett has famously noted that he pays a lower tax rate than
> his secretary.
Perhaps she should take advantage of what Buffet has, Snit... you know, income
derived from dividends and tax free muni bonds and the like. Are you suggesting
we raise the tax on dividends? Or only raise dividend taxes for people at
certain points of investment? Lay it out for me.
> Buffet is the third richest man in the world - and he lives
> in the US and pays, he says, 17.7%
Wait a minute... "he says"? Don't you *know* what he pays? After all, you are
holding him up as an example and doing so with the intention of 'dispensing'
with my "ignorant claim". Seems to me you should know whether or not your
evidence is even real. LOL!
> on the $46 million he made in a single
> year. If you include all of the taxes on a person's income, a middle class
> person almost surely will pay more than that!
Uh... is Buffet including all his corporate taxes? Or do you not know that,
either?
> And that is someone who, he claims, is not *trying* to avoid taxes...
How do you know what he has claimed is completely true?
> and there, really, is no reason to doubt him.
How do you know there is no reason to doubt him? Perhaps he has motives that you
are unaware of.
> Now imagine these people who do have off-shore shelters,
> multiple corporations as shelters, etc. Complete and utter rubbish to say
> these ultra-wealthy are paying their fair share, at least in terms of paying
> a *percentage* of their income.
You appear to have a problem with the word "income" as defined by the IRC.
> Oh, and before Steve whines that Buffett is, somehow, in a special case
Sure... the 3rd richest guy in the world isn't a "special case" <eyeroll>.
I have an idea... why don't you define what you meant by "wealthy"... you
know... so your argument can stand a chance of making some sort of sense. At
least I tried to move towards a definition.
> where he is not paying much in taxes, as a percent, he also issued the
> following challenge:
>
> Išll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes
> 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate
> including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will
> be less than the average of their receptionists.
>
> When Steve can show me who won that bet he can talk about how sad it is for
> the ultra-wealthy to have to pay such high tax percentages.
So now you are using yet another undefined term... "ultra-wealthy". Your
statements have no meaning, Snit. I provided a chart that shows cutoff points...
you provide... meaningless blather.
> So, Steve, if you want to know how much I think the Forbes 400 types should
> pay in taxes, why not *start* with having them pay as much as their
> secretaries do! We can talk from there!
You aren't talking to me at all, Snit... remember?
> For more info see here:
> <http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-p
> aying-my-fair-share/>.
--
Rhino Plastee
news:trollkiller-E0B1...@newsgroups.comcast.net
3rd wealthiest dude in the country pays under $20 of his income in taxes.
Defend that you fuck.
>> Buffet is the third richest man in the world - and he lives
>> in the US and pays, he says, 17.7%
>
> Wait a minute... "he says"? Don't you *know* what he pays? After
> all, you are holding him up as an example and doing so with the
> intention of 'dispensing' with my "ignorant claim". Seems to me you
> should know whether or not your evidence is even real. LOL!
Everyone but you is a liar. Great defense, you fuck.
>> on the $46 million he made in a single
>> year. If you include all of the taxes on a person's income, a
>> middle class person almost surely will pay more than that!
>
>
> Uh... is Buffet including all his corporate taxes? Or do you not know
> that, either?
So now you accept corporate taxes as a part of a person's taxes you flip
flopping fucker.
>> And that is someone who, he claims, is not *trying* to avoid taxes...
>
> How do you know what he has claimed is completely true?
Fuck you, asshole.
>> and there, really, is no reason to doubt him.
>
> How do you know there is no reason to doubt him? Perhaps he has
> motives that you are unaware of.
Yeah, he secretly wants the wealthy to be unfairly treated. What a fuck
head you are.
>> Now imagine these people who do have off-shore shelters,
>> multiple corporations as shelters, etc. Complete and utter rubbish
>> to say these ultra-wealthy are paying their fair share, at least in
>> terms of paying a *percentage* of their income.
>
> You appear to have a problem with the word "income" as defined by the
> IRC.
This is Usenet and not IRC you fuck nugget. <g>
>> Oh, and before Steve whines that Buffett is, somehow, in a special
>> case
>
>
> Sure... the 3rd richest guy in the world isn't a "special case"
> <eyeroll>.
He should be paying a higher percentage, not lower, needle dick.
> I have an idea... why don't you define what you meant by "wealthy"...
> you know... so your argument can stand a chance of making some sort
> of sense. At least I tried to move towards a definition.
You mean like talking about fortune 400 executives you illiterate fucktard.
>> where he is not paying much in taxes, as a percent, he also issued
>> the following challenge:
>>
>> Išll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes
>> 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate
>> including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will
>> be less than the average of their receptionists.
>>
>> When Steve can show me who won that bet he can talk about how sad it
>> is for the ultra-wealthy to have to pay such high tax percentages.
>
> So now you are using yet another undefined term... "ultra-wealthy".
> Your statements have no meaning, Snit. I provided a chart that shows
> cutoff points... you provide... meaningless blather.
Look up what the Forbes 400 is dickless.
>> So, Steve, if you want to know how much I think the Forbes 400 types
>> should pay in taxes, why not *start* with having them pay as much as
>> their secretaries do! We can talk from there!
>
> You aren't talking to me at all, Snit... remember?
Making up some more shit you fucking worm?
Rhino Plastee
Get a spine you fucking worm and figure out if you think a progessive tax is
a socialist idea or not.
Rhino Plastee
> In article <C52A90C2.DC9A1%use...@gallopinginsanity.com>,
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve, for example, has claimed that teaching is not a "real job",
>
> And you'll be showing where I said this any minute now, too. LOL!
>
>> though he later back pedaled and claimed that it was only not a
>> "real job" for one person
>
> I didn't back pedal... and yes, that person is you.
>
>> who he had *no* idea how good or bad of a job they were doing
>> in their classroom!
>
> A "real job" is something you do full time, Snit... not one hour a
> week... you know, like you were doing when I made the statement. Were
> you even teaching for that hour? Or was that a lie, too?
Hey, fuck head, how many hours a week does a teacher have to teach before
they have a "real job"? How many classes? Does it matter how far they have
to travel or if they have taught them before? Details, dammit! What if
someone teaches part time and also serves foon in the cafateria part time?
Do they have a "real job"? Come on you fucking worm, take a stand and do
something other than bitch about anyone who dares mention that the wealthy
should actually pay taxes. Did Snit piss in your Wheaties or something? Or
maybe the problem is he did not and you want him to. You are a fucking
pervert.
Dale Houstman
McGarnagle wrote:
>
> You gotta love gullible people who believe everything politicians say.
>
From whom did you "learn" that Obama was going to raise taxes on
everyone "period"? You learned it from a politician.
You gotta love gullible people who believe everything politicians say...
dmh
John C. Randolph
>
>
> Spender wrote:
>>
>> Agriculture subsidies do not keep food from being prohibitively expensive.
>> The free market does that.
>
> That is simply a lie. The "free market" charges as much as it can get
> for any product/resource.
Dale,
You have no idea what you're talking about. Agricultural subsidies
NEVER reduce the price of commodities, they are payments to restrict
the supply of those commodities, which pushes the prices up.
Subdidies fuck over the public twice; first by the unconstitutional
transfer of money from taxpayers to the recipients, and secondly by the
higher food prices that result.
> The "free market" charges as much as it can get for any product/resource.
Any given producer will charge whatever they can get, but you ignore
the fact that the buyer has to agree on a price, or the producer gets
nothing.
Have you heard of something called "competition"? That's the force
that pushes prices down, (or would, if government wasn't trying to
constantly increase its power by interfering in matters that are beyond
its legitimate prerogatives.)
Go do some homework: read "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations ", by Adam Smith and "The Law", by Frederic
Bastiat. Who knows, even a pig-ignorant prat like yourself might
possibly be able to learn something.
-jcr
John C. Randolph
>
> Progressive taxation was one of the precepts of the founding fathers:
>
> "Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is
> "to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the
> "higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they
> "rise." Thomas Jefferson
I've read that letter to Madison, and if you would read it in its
entirety, you would learn that Jefferson only mentions this as a
possibility; he doesn't advocate it as an ideal, and calling it one of
his "precepts" is grasping at straws. What he goes on to advocate is
free homesteading of unused land, not confiscatory taxation of anyone
who prospers.
Try reading for comprehension next time.
-jcr
McGarnagle
wrote:
>
>
>McGarnagle wrote:
>
>>
>> You gotta love gullible people who believe everything politicians say.
>>
>
> From whom did you "learn" that Obama was going to raise taxes on
>everyone "period"? You learned it from a politician.
>
Exactly, I learned it from almost every past politician that got
elected and didn't keep his/her promises - both Repub and Dem.
That's why you're a gullible person that believes everything Obama
says and blames everything on Bush, just like Obama says.
Back to the Huffington Post for this lib...
Mocassin Joe
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C52A77F3.DC89D%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
It is a well known fact that if you own an income producing commercial
property, your tax liability can be held to zero. If you sell that property
and reinvest in another of equal or greater coast, the capital gains can be
deferred indefinitely, or never paid.
It is also a fact that the richest pay at a lesser percentage, than the
great unwashed masses.
It is also a fact that the "middle class" is carrying most of the burden.
west
> Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this? Yeah, I can
> understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for McCain
> to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
> their own for long enough.
> Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
> Clinton fan. Just the facts.
>
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck&eurl=http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Avatar the Aviator
A+ mvm
Snit
TMhNk.56068$vX2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net on 10/27/08 4:42 AM:
Steve has been shown these stats before - or ones similar to them. His
ignorance is willful and extreme.
--
It usually takes me more than three weeks to prepare a good impromptu
speech. -- Mark Twain
RS
wrote:
>
>By the way, I realize you have very little education in such matters so I'll
>help you along a bit here... there actually *are* some historians who refer to
>Jefferson as a proto-socialist:
>
>http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/18_1/18_1_2.pdf
I don't think that enlarging the term 'socialist' to encompass
everyone that you'd like to demonize is a workable strategy. You've
just ended up trying to bring Obama down by associating him with
Thomas Jefferson? Yeah, that'll do it. Damn socialists. <g>
marcus
> Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this? Yeah, I can
> understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for McCain
> to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
> their own for long enough.
> Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
> Clinton fan. Just the facts.
SOAK THE RICH!!!
Las Vegas Don
The idea that anyone has to "give back" what they worked for is a
dangerous idea. You view yourself as on the bottom. Look at the guys
pushing carts and "give back". As a matter of fact, why don't you
join back and give it all to your idea!
Socialism (look it up and define the word with a dictionary and not
with emotionalism) did not work in Europe as it is a flawed idea.
If you want something in life, go work for it. Or, put the hand that
you seem to have out as a pan handler, put it to work. Work is
honorable. Mooching really sucks.
Palin / Hillary is percepeptual, I have a better perception. I
support McCain and Palin. Everyone in our household will vote for
them. They are not Socialists. They are Americans that work.
Granted they were not Community Organisers and, frankly, do lack the
organising skills. I worked in organised labor for decades in Las
Vegas. I would rther vote to a man and Lady that have balls than
anyone else. Sorry, we ha ve to agree to dissagree.
Don
Las Vegas Don
> "Dale Houstman" <d...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4904B529...@skypoint.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kat wrote:
> >> Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this? Yeah, I can
> >> understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for
> >> McCain
> >> to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
> >> their own for long enough.
> >> Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
> >> Clinton fan. Just the facts.
>
> > rubes. The government is ALWAYS in the business of wealth distribution.
> > instance among many: if it weren't for government support of agriculture
> > (taking a city dweller's hard-earned pay and giving it to farmers), food
> > civilization that. And this isn't even counting in all the costs that
> > would bury us if there were no roads, no schools, no fire departments, and
> > no Social Security. The question has NEVER been "should we redistribute
> > wealth" but rather "who should pay the most, and who should receive the
> > help?" - we recently witnessed the largest single redistribution of wealth
> > upward in the (phoney) guise of a bailout. A week after 700 billion
> > dollars were gifted to banks, 70 billion of it had already found its way
> > into individual CEOs' hands, as bonuses. A few months down the line, it
> > will all be gone, and those bastard beggars will come to the door again. I
> > suggest we hang'em from the lampposts and pelt their corpses with eggs.
> > But I suspect we will just pony up and get ridden hard again. Yee hah!
>
> > dmh
>
> It was just one of the stupid remarks made in this campaign. Take your pick.
>
> The most heartless and stupid thing that was said was "Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran"
> by McStupid. Followed by:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2v8cuQTVO8
>
> McCain is a monster.
>
> olddog
The whole nation sang it, and proudly, as did you probobly. In the
real world you knock the shit of people that would do you in, before
they do you in. <cCain is fine and representative of the entire
nation more than a Socialist that will take your money and "spread it
around" as he stated.
Now, THAT was a dumb statement, spread it around. You must put your
nation first, above all as if you hug to many trees and spread it
around to much you will be a flacid nation, no economy, and useless.
Don
Las Vegas Don
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:54:45 -0600, "Kat" <k...@msn.com> wrote:
> >Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this? Yeah, I can
> >understand the Richest of the nation not wanting to give back but for McCain
> >to ridicule the idea states much about his party whom have taken care of
> >their own for long enough.
> >Sarah Palin wouldn't make a pimple on Hillary Clinton's ass and I'm no
> >Clinton fan. Just the facts.
>
> convincing poor people that poor people suck. So you have poor/middle
> class railing on about how the poor/middle class caused the Wall St.
> collapse, when few would have even understood what was going on on
> Wall St, much less being to blame for high level monetary scams or
> lobbying for deregulation.
>
> This 'spread the wealth' thing has obviously not registered for what
> it is. Well, propaganda is what it is, but if you say "the rich
> deserve to keep all the money!", that may not make an effective
> rallying cry for McCain. If 'redistribution' is stated in terms of tax
> cuts, it sounds like a good thing, but no, this couldn't be someone
> trying to get the poor/middle back on track--instead this is
> communism.
>
> At this point, I think most are now numb to the onslaught of
> 'anti-American', 'commie', 'traitor', etc. Amazing that those tired
> tactics are still working at all, considering.
Oh God, can I get a rousing AMEN from the Chior!! He is communism at
its most unfruitful.
Don
Rev. Dr. Rev. R. Ben Rand III, Esq, PhD
>Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this?
Um, yes, as he should be.
Avatar the Aviator
W-T-F?! :-)!
The non-McCain/Palin Neocon II GOP is suddenly _not_ "SOCIALIST"?
WTF?!
*WHAT* could *possibly* be _more_delusional_ than not *SEEING* that
under the *current* ----> GOP:
We've witnessed the entire Wall Street investment banking industry,
mortgage packaging (FNMA/FDMC), insurance company (now underway) and
soon, two of three survivors in Detroit's automaking industry getting
_NATIONALIZED_ (a Communist nation move)?!
When Obama referred to wealth redistribution, it's with regard to the
fantastically ubber rich who are so far up $$$ and out of the sight of
the GOP "base"[...and I do mean: base-]that the proletariat gun 'n bible
waving, no-education / FoxNews manipulated phuctards, the
"base" thinks this Democratic candidate is coming after *THEIR* $$$$.
_110_% _WRONGO_ !
This ABusenet medium is _clearly_ attended by a majority of ignorant,
uneducated, lower middle class GOP cretins who have *NO* idea how high,
upper _IS_ in the $$$ game. You fools think "rich" is in reference to
physician's, attorneys, small business owners.
"Bwa ha ha, ha HA!"
_110_% _WRONGO_ !
SOCIALIZED? GEORGE W. BUSH AND CO. -YOUR PRESIDENT- OVERSAW THE THE
LARGEST SOCIALIZATION OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE -EVER- TO OCCUR IN THE
UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA!
*They* allowed pork barrel spending to run amok, never vetoed a spending
bill, WMD-lied, to get us into a war we have *no* business in
(IRAQ)-AGAIN (a la Vietnam and the bogus Gulf of Tonkin Resolution), and
now, have *you* parroting 1950's "Commie!" talk a la Nixon, McCarthy.
*F-O-O-L-S*!
Ah, the time to pull you poor bastards away from the wheel and into
rehab has finally _come_ .
Thank you, GOD! Obama/Biden 2008 :-)mvm
BaJoRi
"Rev. Dr. Rev. R. Ben Rand III, Esq, PhD" <fi...@absolution.coim> wrote in
message news:raeeg4paftne69827...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:54:45 -0600, "Kat" <k...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>>Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this?
>
>
> Um, yes, as he should be.
The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature that if
you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned, you won't work
as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Combine that
with the fact that if you don't like to work hard, and someone else is going
to take care of you, it gives you an excuse to be an even lazier slob.
KK
> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature
> that if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned, you
> won't work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
I can't believe people don't get that.
A few weeks ago I posted about my experience trying to have a discussion
with a guy about business taxes, where he wouldn't acknowledge *a bit*
that lowering a business' costs by (for example) lowering taxes would
decrease the pressure to save on other things (like, for example,
outsourcing a help desk to India).
I am just as astounded when people don't "get" that higher taxes is, for
practical purposes, the same as a pay cut and that people will be less
likely to work that extra hour or put in the time and work necessary for
a promotion if those things return less than they would have otherwise.
These are incontrovertible, simple, plain-to-see facts, and because of
them the lies that are efficient government control of the economy, or
redistribution that encourages growth, are apparent as such.
Snit
10/28/08 10:46 AM:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:32:30 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>
>> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature
>> that if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned, you
>> won't work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
>
> I can't believe people don't get that.
Absolute socialism would be no more workable than absolute capitalism.
> A few weeks ago I posted about my experience trying to have a discussion
> with a guy about business taxes, where he wouldn't acknowledge *a bit*
> that lowering a business' costs by (for example) lowering taxes would
> decrease the pressure to save on other things (like, for example,
> outsourcing a help desk to India).
Well, it depends on the business - right now, in the US, the executives of
many of the larger corporations are the recipients of an outrageous
percentage of the profit of the business. Being that the businesses benefit
so much from the "system", it makes no sense to not require them to also
give back to the "system"... at least to the amount that the workers who
work there are expected to! When corporations pay so much less of their
income as taxes than do the workers something is out of whack.
> I am just as astounded when people don't "get" that higher taxes is, for
> practical purposes, the same as a pay cut and that people will be less
> likely to work that extra hour or put in the time and work necessary for
> a promotion if those things return less than they would have otherwise.
Can you point to someone who does not "get" the idea that higher taxes
reduces their amount of take home pay? I suspect you will not find *anyone*
who fits your straw man.
I will note you are applying hourly concepts to people who are salaried...
which is in error.
> These are incontrovertible, simple, plain-to-see facts, and because of
> them the lies that are efficient government control of the economy, or
> redistribution that encourages growth, are apparent as such.
You created a straw man argument and shot it down. Lovely.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post JdINk.932$Di1...@newsfe13.iad
> on 10/28/08 10:46 AM:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:32:30 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>
>>> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature
>>> that if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned,
>>> you won't work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your
>>> labor.
>>
>> I can't believe people don't get that.
>
> Absolute socialism would be no more workable than absolute capitalism.
It certainly would not. It would be less workable.
>
>> A few weeks ago I posted about my experience trying to have a
>> discussion with a guy about business taxes, where he wouldn't
>> acknowledge *a bit* that lowering a business' costs by (for example)
>> lowering taxes would decrease the pressure to save on other things
>> (like, for example, outsourcing a help desk to India).
>
> Well, it depends on the business - right now, in the US, the executives
> of many of the larger corporations are the recipients of an outrageous
> percentage of the profit of the business. Being that the businesses
> benefit so much from the "system", it makes no sense to not require them
> to also give back to the "system"...
And what qualifies you to make the blanket statement that shareholders
are too stupid to decide who should run the companies they own?
> at least to the amount that the
> workers who work there are expected to! When corporations pay so much
> less of their income as taxes than do the workers something is out of
> whack.
Why? The money those companies make will be paid out in dividends or
income and taxed accordingly. Why should the government get a big slash
off the top?
>> I am just as astounded when people don't "get" that higher taxes is,
>> for practical purposes, the same as a pay cut and that people will be
>> less likely to work that extra hour or put in the time and work
>> necessary for a promotion if those things return less than they would
>> have otherwise.
>
> Can you point to someone who does not "get" the idea that higher taxes
> reduces their amount of take home pay? I suspect you will not find
> *anyone* who fits your straw man.
I didn't say they didn't "get" that higher taxes reduces take-home pay.
I said they didn't make the leap from that to understanding that people
would work less given that they'd make less. It's no straw man.
> I will note you are applying hourly concepts to people who are
> salaried... which is in error.
The extra hour applies to wage earners, and the (see that "or" there,
dummy?) putting in time and work for a promotion applies to wage and
salaried people.
>
>> These are incontrovertible, simple, plain-to-see facts, and because of
>> them the lies that are efficient government control of the economy, or
>> redistribution that encourages growth, are apparent as such.
>
> You created a straw man argument and shot it down. Lovely.
No, I didn't.
Snit
10/28/08 12:35 PM:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:27:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post JdINk.932$Di1...@newsfe13.iad
>> on 10/28/08 10:46 AM:
>>
>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:32:30 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>
>>>> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature
>>>> that if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned,
>>>> you won't work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your
>>>> labor.
>>>
>>> I can't believe people don't get that.
>>
>> Absolute socialism would be no more workable than absolute capitalism.
>
> It certainly would not. It would be less workable.
I suppose we can debate which would suck more, but clearly neither is
workable. :)
>>
>>> A few weeks ago I posted about my experience trying to have a
>>> discussion with a guy about business taxes, where he wouldn't
>>> acknowledge *a bit* that lowering a business' costs by (for example)
>>> lowering taxes would decrease the pressure to save on other things
>>> (like, for example, outsourcing a help desk to India).
>>
>> Well, it depends on the business - right now, in the US, the executives
>> of many of the larger corporations are the recipients of an outrageous
>> percentage of the profit of the business. Being that the businesses
>> benefit so much from the "system", it makes no sense to not require them
>> to also give back to the "system"...
>
> And what qualifies you to make the blanket statement that shareholders
> are too stupid to decide who should run the companies they own?
What qualifies you to attribute *that* straw man to me? I said *nothing* of
who they should or should not pick. Not a *single* word.
>> at least to the amount that the workers who work there are expected to! When
>> corporations pay so much less of their income as taxes than do the workers
>> something is out of whack.
>
> Why? The money those companies make will be paid out in dividends or
> income and taxed accordingly. Why should the government get a big slash
> off the top?
Why should the wealthy corporations pay *less* in taxes (as a percent) than
you or I, especially when they clearly benefit so much? The fact that they
have employees and shareholders is not in contention.
>>> I am just as astounded when people don't "get" that higher taxes is,
>>> for practical purposes, the same as a pay cut and that people will be
>>> less likely to work that extra hour or put in the time and work
>>> necessary for a promotion if those things return less than they would
>>> have otherwise.
>>
>> Can you point to someone who does not "get" the idea that higher taxes
>> reduces their amount of take home pay? I suspect you will not find
>> *anyone* who fits your straw man.
>
> I didn't say they didn't "get" that higher taxes reduces take-home pay.
> I said they didn't make the leap from that to understanding that people
> would work less given that they'd make less. It's no straw man.
Let's say the government needs 1 dollar. Also assume that Mr. MoneyBucks is
making 99 dollars and Mr. AverageJoe is making a dollar. Arguing that it is
wrong to tax Mr. MoneyBucks because he will work less makes no sense - the
alternative is to tax Mr. AverageJoe more... and if you take his full dollar
why should he work at all?
My idea is to stop the absurdity of taxing Mr. MoneyBucks as a lower
percentage than you tax Mr. AveregeJoe. That *is* how it works now. As I
wrote recently to someone who was completely clueless:
---------
Warren Buffett has famously noted that he pays a lower tax rate than his
secretary. Buffet is the third richest man in the world - and he lives in
the US and pays, he says, 17.7% on the $46 million he made in a single year.
If you include all of the taxes on a person's income, a middle class person
almost surely will pay more than that! And that is someone who, he claims,
is not *trying* to avoid taxes... and there, really, is no reason to doubt
him. Now imagine these people who do have off-shore shelters, multiple
corporations as shelters, etc. Complete and utter rubbish to say these
ultra-wealthy are paying their fair share, at least in terms of paying a
*percentage* of their income.
Oh, and before Steve whines that Buffett is, somehow, in a special case
where he is not paying much in taxes, as a percent, he also issued the
following challenge:
Išll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes
400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate
including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will
be less than the average of their receptionists.
When Steve can show me who won that bet he can talk about how sad it is for
the ultra-wealthy to have to pay such high tax percentages.
So, Steve, if you want to know how much I think the Forbes 400 types should
pay in taxes, why not *start* with having them pay as much as their
secretaries do! We can talk from there!
For more info see here:
<http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warren-buffett-and-p
aying-my-fair-share/>.
---------
>> I will note you are applying hourly concepts to people who are
>> salaried... which is in error.
>
> The extra hour applies to wage earners, and the (see that "or" there,
> dummy?) putting in time and work for a promotion applies to wage and
> salaried people.
So apply it to hourly workers! Mr. AverageJoe should not be taxed more than
Mr. MoneyBucks, even as a percentage.
>>> These are incontrovertible, simple, plain-to-see facts, and because of
>>> them the lies that are efficient government control of the economy, or
>>> redistribution that encourages growth, are apparent as such.
>>
>> You created a straw man argument and shot it down. Lovely.
>
> No, I didn't.
Well, then, let's see your argument in support of your position.
--
"For example, user interfaces are _usually_ better in commercial software.
I'm not saying that this is always true, but in many cases the user
interface to a program is the most important part for a commercial
company..." Linus Torvalds <http://www.tlug.jp/docs/linus.html>
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post 3QJNk.969$Di1...@newsfe13.iad
> on 10/28/08 12:35 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:27:05 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
>>> JdINk.932$Di1...@newsfe13.iad on 10/28/08 10:46 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 17:32:30 +0000, BaJoRi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature
>>>>> that if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned,
>>>>> you won't work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your
>>>>> labor.
>>>>
>>>> I can't believe people don't get that.
>>>
>>> Absolute socialism would be no more workable than absolute capitalism.
>>
>> It certainly would not. It would be less workable.
They're certainly not *equally* unworkable. Socialism needs the engine
of the economy to keep all its promises, and under absolute socialism,
there wouldn't be one.
Under "absolute" capitalism, people with no skills would be worthless.
But everyone else wouldn't be, and there would be a real economy.
>
> I suppose we can debate which would suck more, but clearly neither is
> workable. :)
>>>
>>>> A few weeks ago I posted about my experience trying to have a
>>>> discussion with a guy about business taxes, where he wouldn't
>>>> acknowledge *a bit* that lowering a business' costs by (for example)
>>>> lowering taxes would decrease the pressure to save on other things
>>>> (like, for example, outsourcing a help desk to India).
>>>
>>> Well, it depends on the business - right now, in the US, the
>>> executives of many of the larger corporations are the recipients of an
>>> outrageous percentage of the profit of the business. Being that the
>>> businesses benefit so much from the "system", it makes no sense to not
>>> require them to also give back to the "system"...
>>
>> And what qualifies you to make the blanket statement that shareholders
>> are too stupid to decide who should run the companies they own?
>
> What qualifies you to attribute *that* straw man to me? I said
> *nothing* of who they should or should not pick. Not a *single* word.
You suggest as a replacement to the current system one that requires them
to give back to the system, because the executives are paid too much.
That means you want to take that power away from the shareholders, and
increase the power government has over corporations.
No straw man.
>
>>> at least to the amount that the workers who work there are expected
>>> to! When corporations pay so much less of their income as taxes than
>>> do the workers something is out of whack.
>>
>> Why? The money those companies make will be paid out in dividends or
>> income and taxed accordingly. Why should the government get a big
>> slash off the top?
>
> Why should the wealthy corporations pay *less* in taxes (as a percent)
> than you or I, especially when they clearly benefit so much? The fact
> that they have employees and shareholders is not in contention.
Why should an inanimate, abstract idea pay income taxes? As long as
income (to people) and dividends and capital gains are taxed, why tie an
anchor to an engine of job creation and employment?
>>>> I am just as astounded when people don't "get" that higher taxes is,
>>>> for practical purposes, the same as a pay cut and that people will be
>>>> less likely to work that extra hour or put in the time and work
>>>> necessary for a promotion if those things return less than they would
>>>> have otherwise.
>>>
>>> Can you point to someone who does not "get" the idea that higher taxes
>>> reduces their amount of take home pay? I suspect you will not find
>>> *anyone* who fits your straw man.
>>
>> I didn't say they didn't "get" that higher taxes reduces take-home pay.
>> I said they didn't make the leap from that to understanding that people
>> would work less given that they'd make less. It's no straw man.
>
> Let's say the government needs 1 dollar. Also assume that Mr.
> MoneyBucks is making 99 dollars and Mr. AverageJoe is making a dollar.
> Arguing that it is wrong to tax Mr. MoneyBucks because he will work less
> makes no sense
Who's putting words in whose mouth now? I didn't use the words "right"
or "wrong". I said someone who stands to gain less by working more will
work less than another person who doesn't stand to gain less.
>- the alternative is to tax Mr. AverageJoe more... and if
> you take his full dollar why should he work at all?
And if you take half his dollar, he's got only half the reason to work.
That's what I said, and that's what they didn't get.
>
> My idea is to stop the absurdity of taxing Mr. MoneyBucks as a lower
> percentage than you tax Mr. AveregeJoe. That *is* how it works now.
Oh? Seems to me that when I did my taxes, the first $30K I made was
taxed at 15% while the last $30K I made was taxed at 35%. So that's
*not* how it works now (or I need a new accountant!)
> As
> I wrote recently to someone who was completely clueless:
Speaking of clueless: are you talking about income taxes, or the taxes
paid on dividends, gains, etc.?
>
>>> I will note you are applying hourly concepts to people who are
>>> salaried... which is in error.
>>
>> The extra hour applies to wage earners, and the (see that "or" there,
>> dummy?) putting in time and work for a promotion applies to wage and
>> salaried people.
>
> So apply it to hourly workers! Mr. AverageJoe should not be taxed more
> than Mr. MoneyBucks, even as a percentage.
Again, if you're talking about income taxes, they're not. If you're not,
then be more clear.
>
>>>> These are incontrovertible, simple, plain-to-see facts, and because
>>>> of them the lies that are efficient government control of the
>>>> economy, or redistribution that encourages growth, are apparent as
>>>> such.
>>>
>>> You created a straw man argument and shot it down. Lovely.
>>
>> No, I didn't.
>
> Well, then, let's see your argument in support of your position.
What "position" did I introduce? If you'll go back and read, you'll see
that I entered the thread by describing the lack of common sense people
have about simple economic concepts.
Snit
10/28/08 1:41 PM:
...
>>>>>> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature
>>>>>> that if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned,
>>>>>> you won't work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your
>>>>>> labor.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can't believe people don't get that.
>>>>
>>>> Absolute socialism would be no more workable than absolute capitalism.
>>>
>>> It certainly would not. It would be less workable.
>
> They're certainly not *equally* unworkable. Socialism needs the engine
> of the economy to keep all its promises, and under absolute socialism,
> there wouldn't be one.
>
> Under "absolute" capitalism, people with no skills would be worthless.
> But everyone else wouldn't be, and there would be a real economy.
See my very next sentence:
>> I suppose we can debate which would suck more, but clearly neither is
>> workable. :)
Who cares which you or I think would be less workable - neither would work.
Clearly. The fact your analysis, above, is grossly flawed is neither here
nor there. :)
>>>>> A few weeks ago I posted about my experience trying to have a
>>>>> discussion with a guy about business taxes, where he wouldn't
>>>>> acknowledge *a bit* that lowering a business' costs by (for example)
>>>>> lowering taxes would decrease the pressure to save on other things
>>>>> (like, for example, outsourcing a help desk to India).
>>>>
>>>> Well, it depends on the business - right now, in the US, the
>>>> executives of many of the larger corporations are the recipients of an
>>>> outrageous percentage of the profit of the business. Being that the
>>>> businesses benefit so much from the "system", it makes no sense to not
>>>> require them to also give back to the "system"...
>>>
>>> And what qualifies you to make the blanket statement that shareholders
>>> are too stupid to decide who should run the companies they own?
>>
>> What qualifies you to attribute *that* straw man to me? I said
>> *nothing* of who they should or should not pick. Not a *single* word.
>
> You suggest as a replacement to the current system one that requires them
> to give back to the system, because the executives are paid too much.
I disagree that one has to replace the entire system just to have
"executives" pay their fair share! Oh, and when did I say they should pay
their *fair* share because they are "paid too much"? You simply are making
things up.
> That means you want to take that power away from the shareholders, and
> increase the power government has over corporations.
Nope. Never said any such thing. You made that up.
>
> No straw man.
Even if unintentional, say based on an inability to understand what you
read, your comments were clearly not representative of the views of mine I
stated.
>>>> at least to the amount that the workers who work there are expected
>>>> to! When corporations pay so much less of their income as taxes than
>>>> do the workers something is out of whack.
>>>
>>> Why? The money those companies make will be paid out in dividends or
>>> income and taxed accordingly. Why should the government get a big
>>> slash off the top?
>>
>> Why should the wealthy corporations pay *less* in taxes (as a percent)
>> than you or I, especially when they clearly benefit so much? The fact
>> that they have employees and shareholders is not in contention.
>
> Why should an inanimate, abstract idea pay income taxes?
If that "idea" is earning income! That was easy! Oh, and that "idea" is,
in many ways, treated like a person by the government (look up the idea of a
"legal person")
> As long as income (to people) and dividends and capital gains are taxed, why
> tie an anchor to an engine of job creation and employment?
Why do you think we tax *any* income?
>>>>> I am just as astounded when people don't "get" that higher taxes is,
>>>>> for practical purposes, the same as a pay cut and that people will be
>>>>> less likely to work that extra hour or put in the time and work
>>>>> necessary for a promotion if those things return less than they would
>>>>> have otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> Can you point to someone who does not "get" the idea that higher taxes
>>>> reduces their amount of take home pay? I suspect you will not find
>>>> *anyone* who fits your straw man.
>>>
>>> I didn't say they didn't "get" that higher taxes reduces take-home pay.
>>> I said they didn't make the leap from that to understanding that people
>>> would work less given that they'd make less. It's no straw man.
>>
>> Let's say the government needs 1 dollar. Also assume that Mr.
>> MoneyBucks is making 99 dollars and Mr. AverageJoe is making a dollar.
>> Arguing that it is wrong to tax Mr. MoneyBucks because he will work less
>> makes no sense
>
> Who's putting words in whose mouth now? I didn't use the words "right"
> or "wrong". I said someone who stands to gain less by working more will
> work less than another person who doesn't stand to gain less.
Utter rubbish. Mr. AveragePerson will likely work much harder for an extra
$100 than Mr. MoneyBucks will work for an extra thousand.
>> - the alternative is to tax Mr. AverageJoe more... and if
>> you take his full dollar why should he work at all?
>
> And if you take half his dollar, he's got only half the reason to work.
> That's what I said, and that's what they didn't get.
Who is this "they" and where do they show disagreement?
>> My idea is to stop the absurdity of taxing Mr. MoneyBucks as a lower
>> percentage than you tax Mr. AveregeJoe. That *is* how it works now.
>
> Oh? Seems to me that when I did my taxes, the first $30K I made was
> taxed at 15% while the last $30K I made was taxed at 35%. So that's
> *not* how it works now (or I need a new accountant!)
Ah, the game where you pretend that that was the only tax on your income.
Why play it? And why did you snip the content where I showed this to be,
for Mr. MoneyBucks, incorrect?
>> As
>> I wrote recently to someone who was completely clueless:=
>
> Speaking of clueless: are you talking about income taxes, or the taxes
> paid on dividends, gains, etc.?
Taxes on *income*. Any type of income. Any type of taxes.
And notice how you snipped the info that pretty much ripped your world view
apart. Funny, eh?
>>>> I will note you are applying hourly concepts to people who are
>>>> salaried... which is in error.
>>>
>>> The extra hour applies to wage earners, and the (see that "or" there,
>>> dummy?) putting in time and work for a promotion applies to wage and
>>> salaried people.
>>
>> So apply it to hourly workers! Mr. AverageJoe should not be taxed more
>> than Mr. MoneyBucks, even as a percentage.
>
> Again, if you're talking about income taxes, they're not. If you're not,
> then be more clear.
And you will snip all contrary evidence until you turn blue in the face.
Snicker. Here it is, again:
So who do you think won that bet? Who was even willing to take it?
>>>>> These are incontrovertible, simple, plain-to-see facts, and because
>>>>> of them the lies that are efficient government control of the
>>>>> economy, or redistribution that encourages growth, are apparent as
>>>>> such.
>>>>
>>>> You created a straw man argument and shot it down. Lovely.
>>>
>>> No, I didn't.
>>
>> Well, then, let's see your argument in support of your position.
>
> What "position" did I introduce?
LOL! See above.
> If you'll go back and read, you'll see
> that I entered the thread by describing the lack of common sense people
> have about simple economic concepts.
Nope: you argued against your straw man of how people see economic
principles and introduced your views... of which you cannot support and snip
contrary info. Too funny.
--
BU__SH__
KK
clarity. If you don't like it, sorry.
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:32:37 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>>> Well, it depends on the business - right now, in the US, the
>>>>> executives of many of the larger corporations are the recipients of
>>>>> an outrageous percentage of the profit of the business. Being that
>>>>> the businesses benefit so much from the "system", it makes no sense
>>>>> to not require them to also give back to the "system"...
>>>>
>>>> And what qualifies you to make the blanket statement that
>>>> shareholders are too stupid to decide who should run the companies
>>>> they own?
>>>
>>> What qualifies you to attribute *that* straw man to me? I said
>>> *nothing* of who they should or should not pick. Not a *single* word.
>>
>> You suggest as a replacement to the current system one that requires
>> them to give back to the system, because the executives are paid too
>> much.
>
> I disagree that one has to replace the entire system just to have
> "executives" pay their fair share! Oh, and when did I say they should
> pay their *fair* share because they are "paid too much"? You simply are
> making things up.
>
>> That means you want to take that power away from the shareholders, and
>> increase the power government has over corporations.
>
> Nope. Never said any such thing. You made that up.
1. "the executives ... are the recipients of an outrageous percentage of
the profit"
2. "It makes no senst to not require them to ... give back to the system"
Right now, shareholders decide executive pay. Your statement #1 declares
that pay to be "outrageous", second-guessing shareholders.
"Outrageous pay" also, to any reasonable person, means "too much pay".
If I've assumed incorrectly and you somehow didn't mean to say that
they're paid too much, then I don't think I'm the one with the problem.
And the suggestion in #2 increases government power over corporations
by ... confiscating more of their executive's money.
So - maybe you don't like the logical conclusions of your statements, but
that's what they are.
> Even if unintentional, say based on an inability to understand what you
> read, your comments were clearly not representative of the views of mine
> I stated.
The application of those views apparently have unintended and not-well-
considered consequenses
>> Why should an inanimate, abstract idea pay income taxes?
>
> If that "idea" is earning income! That was easy!
Easy for you, I'm sure.
> Oh, and that "idea"
> is, in many ways, treated like a person by the government (look up the
> idea of a "legal person")
And, in many ways, *not*. You can take the income tax you delight in
charging corporations and use it to pay for the travel of the jobs you'd
send out of the country.
>> As long as income (to people) and dividends and capital gains are
>> taxed, why tie an anchor to an engine of job creation and employment?
>
> Why do you think we tax *any* income?
To feed the heroin-like addictoin that filth politicians have with
spending.
You also seem to have a vengeful or punitive motive.
>>>>>> I am just as astounded when people don't "get" that higher taxes
>>>>>> is, for practical purposes, the same as a pay cut and that people
>>>>>> will be less likely to work that extra hour or put in the time and
>>>>>> work necessary for a promotion if those things return less than
>>>>>> they would have otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you point to someone who does not "get" the idea that higher
>>>>> taxes reduces their amount of take home pay? I suspect you will not
>>>>> find *anyone* who fits your straw man.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't say they didn't "get" that higher taxes reduces take-home
>>>> pay. I said they didn't make the leap from that to understanding that
>>>> people would work less given that they'd make less. It's no straw
>>>> man.
>>>
>>> Let's say the government needs 1 dollar. Also assume that Mr.
>>> MoneyBucks is making 99 dollars and Mr. AverageJoe is making a dollar.
>>> Arguing that it is wrong to tax Mr. MoneyBucks because he will work
>>> less makes no sense
>>
>> Who's putting words in whose mouth now? I didn't use the words "right"
>> or "wrong". I said someone who stands to gain less by working more
>> will work less than another person who doesn't stand to gain less.
>
> Utter rubbish. Mr. AveragePerson will likely work much harder for an
> extra $100 than Mr. MoneyBucks will work for an extra thousand.
That's not the analogy. The variable is the mraginal tax rate, all else
equal. That should be obvious to anyone who can stand upright.
>>> - the alternative is to tax Mr. AverageJoe more... and if you take his
>>> full dollar why should he work at all?
>>
>> And if you take half his dollar, he's got only half the reason to work.
>> That's what I said, and that's what they didn't get.
>
> Who is this "they" and where do they show disagreement?
I thought you were the poster who said my claim that people didn't "get"
the idea of marginal incentive was false.
I don't see that post in this thread. If it wasn't you, then my mistake.
>
>>> My idea is to stop the absurdity of taxing Mr. MoneyBucks as a lower
>>> percentage than you tax Mr. AveregeJoe. That *is* how it works now.
>>
>> Oh? Seems to me that when I did my taxes, the first $30K I made was
>> taxed at 15% while the last $30K I made was taxed at 35%. So that's
>> *not* how it works now (or I need a new accountant!)
>
> Ah, the game where you pretend that that was the only tax on your
> income. Why play it? And why did you snip the content where I showed
> this to be, for Mr. MoneyBucks, incorrect?
Because you said "That *is* how it works now" when clearly, from my 1040,
it wasn't.
And what "game" are you talking about?
>
>>> As
>>> I wrote recently to someone who was completely clueless:=
>>
>> Speaking of clueless: are you talking about income taxes, or the taxes
>> paid on dividends, gains, etc.?
>
> Taxes on *income*. Any type of income. Any type of taxes.
Money invested, whether for gain or dividend, can be lost. There is no
such risk for income. There's no reason to tax the former at the rate of
the latter, except to satisfy the bloodlust you seem to have for people
with more than you, and the sad claim you seem to feel the world has on
other people's belongings.
> And notice how you snipped the info that pretty much ripped your world
> view apart. Funny, eh?
By all means, put it back and we'll see it it blows my mind *this* time.
>>>>> I will note you are applying hourly concepts to people who are
>>>>> salaried... which is in error.
>>>>
>>>> The extra hour applies to wage earners, and the (see that "or" there,
>>>> dummy?) putting in time and work for a promotion applies to wage and
>>>> salaried people.
>>>
>>> So apply it to hourly workers! Mr. AverageJoe should not be taxed
>>> more than Mr. MoneyBucks, even as a percentage.
>>
>> Again, if you're talking about income taxes, they're not. If you're
>> not, then be more clear.
>
> And you will snip all contrary evidence until you turn blue in the face.
> Snicker. Here it is, again:
(snipped the cut and pasted words again)
If Warren Buffett makes a billion dollars, and it's all from investing,
and he stands at any time to lose any or all of it, then he shouldn't be
punitively taxed on it. Does his secretary stand to lose a billion
dollars? Does her money fund capital improvements and growth in the
companies in which it's invested? No.
That 17.7% of his $46M gave the government about eight million dollars.
If his secretary made $50K, then the first 8K's taxed at 10%, the next
$24K at 15%, and the last $17450 at 25%. That's 17.5% - less than
Mr.Buffett, for one thing, but more importantly, about a THOUSANDTH the
actual contribution to the IRS.
More importantly than that, Buffet has employees and creates jobs on his
own *and* with his investments.
> So, Steve, if you want to know how much I think the Forbes 400 types
> should pay in taxes, why not *start* with having them pay as much as
> their secretaries do! We can talk from there!
That's a dishonest line, because he pays far *more* than the hypothetical
secretary.
>
>>>>>> These are incontrovertible, simple, plain-to-see facts, and because
>>>>>> of them the lies that are efficient government control of the
>>>>>> economy, or redistribution that encourages growth, are apparent as
>>>>>> such.
>>>>>
>>>>> You created a straw man argument and shot it down. Lovely.
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn't.
>>>
>>> Well, then, let's see your argument in support of your position.
>>
>> What "position" did I introduce?
>
> LOL! See above.
Well, you made that one easy for yourself.
>
>> If you'll go back and read, you'll see that I entered the thread by
>> describing the lack of common sense people have about simple economic
>> concepts.
>
> Nope: you argued against your straw man of how people see economic
> principles and introduced your views... of which you cannot support and
> snip contrary info. Too funny.
That *is* how people see (or don't) those principles. I can (and have)
supported them.
Avatar the Aviator
Which is why tremendous emergency damage was been done to the U.S.
financial system, nationalizing it. Wall Street, Insurance and next,
the erstwhile pride of U.S. manufacturing: Autos. What's next? Boeing?
It will take years to see the effects of Government's fat, stupid, hand
in the machine of capitalism. IPO's have been dead now for awhile...the
*fall* out from the *Fall* of 2008 (this is no reference to Obama/Biden,
that's a glimmer/shred of hope), will sicken and poison for who knows
how long to come.
If McCorporate didn't own the media, we'd know precisely how horrified
"The Man" is right now.
mvm
>
http://tinyurl.com/32j32m
>
Snit
10/28/08 3:07 PM:
> You're very verby and argumentative. I'm trimming for brevity and
> clarity. If you don't like it, sorry.
You can explain away your running all you like, but in the end you have
shown you are willing to fabricate claims and attribute them to me as you
snip the text that proves you wrong. Oh well.
In the end I will stick with my unrefuted opinion that it makes sense to tax
income and that it is absurd to tax those who gain the most in a system
*and* are the most able to afford it a lower percentage than "average joes".
There is nothing punitive about this, as you dishonestly claimed... nor is
it a "logical conclusion" to say that this means I want to increase
government control over *anyone* or unjustly take power from shareholders,
as you also dishonestly claimed. You also repeatedly claimed "they" do not
get things... but could not say who "they" are nor, of course, offer any
evidence.
--
I think we [the folks who make Linux desktops] don't yet deliver a good
enough user experience.
- Mark Shuttleworth (founded Canonical Ltd. / Ubuntu Linux)
Maveric
I sure hope you'll enjoy the food lines and forced labor for the unemployed
then. What your favorite choice represents is hard core communism, in case
you have forgotten the old Soviet Union.
Maveric
I'll say. It seems the nations youth have forgotten the old Soviet Union
and their food lines. Forced labor and a 1.5 million brown shirt youth
police is what he wants. Sort of a hybrid of communism + facism.
Tim Murray
> Why should the wealthy corporations pay *less* in taxes (as a percent) than
> you or I, especially when they clearly benefit so much? The fact that they
> have employees and shareholders is not in contention.
You don't own a business, do you?
Elvis Kabong
"BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:N0INk.192063$KY3.1...@fe02.news.easynews.com...
Here's something to think about (not that I necessarily agree
with it):
Many people believe that socialism means government or state ownership and
control. Who can blame them when that is what the schools teach and what the
media, politicians and others who oppose socialism say? Worse, some people
and organizations that call themselves socialist say it, too-but not the
Socialist Labor Party.
The SLP says that socialism is something entirely different. After all, we
have plenty of government or state ownership in America today, but who would
argue that America is a socialist country because of it?
This is a capitalist country, not a socialist one. Yet many cities own and
run their own hospitals, libraries, transportation systems and utilities.
The public schools, state college and university systems are government
owned. The federal government owns and controls the FBI, the CIA, the army,
the navy, the air force, the U.S. Marines and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. Why, it even owns all the national forests and
national parks. Yet, who would call these institutions examples of
socialism? Who would say that today's government is socialist because it
owns all of these things? Not the SLP.
What Socialism Is
If government or state ownership is not socialism, what is?
Before answering that question there is something you should know about
government. Not all government is state government. State government is
government based on territory, such as cities, counties and nations. It is
political government, and it is designed to rule over places and the people
in them.
Socialist government is not state government. It would not rule over people
and places, but would empower the people to rule over things. Socialism
means a government in which the people collectively own and democratically
operate the industries and social services through an economic democracy.
And when we say "collectively own," we are not talking about homes, or cars,
or other personal belongings. We are talking about the things needed to
produce and distribute homes, cars and all the other things we need and
want.
Under socialism the workers who operate the industries and services would
collectively own and democratically manage them. In each factory and other
workplace, the rank and file would elect their own immediate supervisors and
management committees. They would also elect representatives to local and
national assemblies of the industry or service in which they work, and to an
all-industrial congress to coordinate production and distribution of all
goods and services throughout the country. In short, socialism would replace
the political government run by politicians with an industrial government
run by workers and their elected representatives.
Instead of a senator from California or a representative from New York,
there would be worker-delegates from the automotive industry, from the
transportation systems, from the mines, from the clothing factories, from
services such as restaurants, hospitals, schools and so on. These
representatives would have the single task of deciding what should be
produced and how best to produce it.
Today we have political democracy only. Workers do not have economic
democracy. The owners of the factories have almost absolute power over their
employees. They can fire whomever they please, whenever they please. They
can close the plant down and move to another state or another country. They
can even order their workers to manufacture something worthless or harmful.
In short, they have all the power of dictators-economic dictators.
Socialism means economic democracy. Instead of voting once every two or four
years for politicians, workers would be making decisions every day where
they work and in the field in which they are most qualified. Here is where
their vote counts because it vitally affects their own personal lives.
When we use the word "worker," we mean everyone who sells his or her labor
power, or ability to work, at so much per hour, or so much per week, to a
capitalist employer. Coal miners are workers, but so are musicians,
scientists, nurses, teachers, architects, inventors and mathematicians.
Benefits of Socialism
Under capitalism workers receive only a small fraction of the wealth that
they alone produce, while the lion's share goes to the capitalist owners and
to the bankers, landlords, insurance companies, lawyers, politicians, and
all the other parasites who live off the back of labor and perform no useful
work. By ending this robbery of the working class, socialism will enable
workers to enjoy the full fruit of their labor.
Socialism would also enable us to raise our living standards dramatically by
ending the billions of dollars thrown away on arms production and "defense,"
by ending the waste, duplication and inefficiency of capitalist industries,
and by returning millions of soldiers and unemployed workers to useful
occupations.
In socialist society there would be no wage system. Workers would receive
the social value of their labor. And since the people would collectively own
the industries, anyone would be free to select any occupation in which he or
she has an interest and aptitude. No longer would workers live under the
fear of being laid off, or be compelled to spend their lives at some job
they hate or are unsuited for. Also, since the people would collectively own
the colleges and universities, no longer would workers be denied education
or training because they lack the money to buy it.
Production for Use, Not for Profit
Furthermore, under socialism we would produce for use and to satisfy the
needs of all the people. Under capitalism the industries operate for one
purpose-to earn a profit for their owners. Under this system, food is not
grown primarily to be eaten. It is grown to be sold. Cars are not
manufactured primarily to be driven. They are made to be sold. If there are
enough buyers here and abroad, then the capitalists will have their
factories turn out cars, appliances, pianos and everything else for which
buyers can be found. But if people lack money, if the domestic and foreign
markets cannot absorb them, then these factories shut down and the country
stagnates, no matter how much people need these commodities.
At the present time, agricapitalists know that they can produce more than
market conditions and price-protecting government restrictions, compensated
for by cash subsidies, permit them to. Meanwhile, millions of Americans
suffer from malnutrition and hunger, as recent surveys have shown, and most
households count their nickels and dimes when they shop for food.
The periodic depressions and recessions of the past have occurred, we are
told, because too much was produced-overproduction. Factories turned out so
vast a quantity of goods that their owners shut them down and laid off the
workers who produced this abundance.
Under socialism the factories and industries would be used to benefit all of
us, not restricted to the creation of profits for the enrichment of a small
group of capitalist owners. Under socialism our farmlands would yield an
abundance without great toil; the factories, mines and mills would be the
safest, the most modern, the most efficient possible and productive beyond
our wildest dreams-and without laborious work. Our natural resources would
be intelligently conserved. Our schools would have the finest facilities and
they would be devoted to developing complete human beings, not wages slaves
who are trained to hire themselves out for someone else's profit. Our
hospitals and social services would create and maintain the finest health
and recreational facilities.
An End to Poverty
In all previous ages of human history, poverty for most of the people was
inescapable. There was simply not enough to go around. But not so today.
Industrial technology and scientific knowledge have so vastly increased our
ability to produce what we need and want that there is no longer any excuse
whatsoever for the poverty of a single member of society. Today we have the
material possibility of abundance for everyone, and the promise of the
leisure in which to enjoy it.
But under capitalism industrial technology is used to replace workers and
increase profits. Instead of creating a society of abundance, capitalism
uses machinery to create unemployment and poverty. Our inner cities have
been converted largely into festering slums in which impoverished people,
not understanding the cause of their miseries, are imprisoned and damned to
a life of misery.
It is not technology that threatens us. By themselves, improved methods of
production and distribution are not social evils. They could be a blessing,
but under capitalism technology is used for antisocial purposes.
This follows from the fact that technology and industry are the exclusive
property of a small minority of the American people-the capitalist class.
Capitalism uses the industries for the private profit of their owners and
not for the benefit of the vast majority of the American people-the workers
who invented and built them.
Build a New Society
In socialist society, on the other hand, since we would collectively own the
factories and means of production, we would have full and free access to the
means of wealth production and distribution. Since we would receive the full
social value of our labor there would be no unwanted surplus. We would
collectively produce the things we want and need for full and happy lives.
It would be to the benefit of all to find new inventions, new means of
production, improved means of distribution. Society as a whole would have a
vital interest in providing opportunity to each individual to find the work
for which he or she is best suited and in which he or she will be happiest.
There would be the fullest freedom and opportunity.
And, we repeat, there would be a complete and full democracy. Democracy that
will truly be based on the broadest lines. Democracy in which the final and
only power will be the great mass of our people, the useful producers, which
in socialist society would mean everybody. Society no longer would be split
into two contending classes. Instead, we would all be useful producers,
collectively owning the means of production and distribution, collectively
concerned with producing the most with the least expenditure of human labor,
and collectively jealous of the rights of the individual to a full, free and
untrammeled life of happiness and accomplishment.
John Black
baron...@aol.com says...
Beautifully concise refutation of Marxism. It took the complete economic
collapse of many nations to learn this simple lesson.
John Black
RichL
And the greater flaw of capitalism is the assumption that people are
rewarded equally for equally taxing work.
It's simply not true. Far from it. A large fraction of the "lazy
slobs" in a capitalist system are those at the top. Meanwhile, those at
the middle of the societal latter (and below) slave away thinking that
the capitalist system has somehow saved them from the gutter.
Both systems are horribly flawed.
Snit
0001HW.C52D4B22...@216.77.188.18 on 10/28/08 8:05 PM:
Yes, I do. My wife and I each have a business. Why do you ask?
Dale Houstman
And it might take the complete economic collapse of many nations to
learn the equally valid lesson that unfettered Capitalism is not exactly
workable either. Oh - the Great Depression already did that! Well -
maybe we need another lesson?
dmh
Rev. Dr. Rev. R. Ben Rand III, Esq, PhD
wrote:
>It took the complete economic
>collapse of many nations to learn this simple lesson.
Nah, economies will still collapse, as the purveyors, like Barry
Obama, prey on the stupid, young and ignorant.
I plan on seeing it again in my lifetime.
Maybe here.
RichL
Helllllllloooooooo!??
We're already witnessing it. And "Barry" had nothing to do with it;
rather, it's been a consequence of the repeated actions of the
laissez-faire set both in the Republican party and a certain wing of the
Democratic party that has allowed it to happen. Stock market, anyone?
Unfettered capitalism is now recognized as being as dead as the
particular brand of Communism formerly practiced by the Soviet Union and
certain Eastern European nations.
What better example of "preying on the young, stupid, and ignorant" can
there be but that of predatory lenders chasing unsuspecting borrowers to
suck them into the shell game? Or of the coyotes running the stock
market seducing the suckers to enter their high-stakes poker game by
giving up guaranteed pension benefits in favor of 401K plans?
benrrrrrrrrand, esq
wrote:
>What better example of "preying on the young, stupid, and ignorant" can
>there be but that of predatory lenders chasing unsuspecting borrowers to
>suck them into the shell game?
THEY WERE FORCED TO DO THIS BY CONGRESS, YOU IDIOT.
RichL
No need to shout. You must be from the Stern group :-)
No one was "forced" to do anything by Congress. I was able to find
reasonable mortgages without a problem.
Just because Congress permits something doesn't mean anyone is forced to
do it. The idea that lenders were forced into unethical actions by an
act of Congress is utterly absurd.
HTH etc.
Avatar the Aviator
"Forced" ? ...or _enabled_ ? 1980 ...29 years ago...1982...27 years ago...
http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/real_estate/congress_subprime.fortune/
More caps bitch! Give 'er more cowbell! Ack ack ack ack...
;-) mvm
KK
> And the greater flaw of capitalism is the assumption that people are
> rewarded equally for equally taxing work.
Nobody assumes that.
The market sets the price for something at exactly what someone is
willing to pay for it. The outcome might not be fair to everyone, but
you might as well complain about the unfairness of the tide coming in.
KK
> Oh - the Great Depression already did that
(shaking head)
KK
> We're already witnessing it. And "Barry" had nothing to do with it;
> rather, it's been a consequence of the repeated actions of the
> laissez-faire set both in the Republican party and a certain wing of the
> Democratic party that has allowed it to happen. Stock market, anyone?
>
> Unfettered capitalism is now recognized as being as dead as the
> particular brand of Communism formerly practiced by the Soviet Union and
> certain Eastern European nations.
The current crisis was not caused by "unfettered capitalism". It was
caused by the opposite: government meddling in and manipulation of a
market, until trillions in bad debt was racked up by quasi-governmental
lenders.
Blaming the current mess on a *lack* of government intervention is 1984-
esque. Wake up.
> Or of the coyotes running the stock
> market seducing the suckers to enter their high-stakes poker game by
> giving up guaranteed pension benefits in favor of 401K plans?
You're ignorant. What do you think those pensions are/were invested in?
Go count how many pensions have failed or been raided, and see if it's
more or fewer than the number of 401(k) approved funds that have failed.
Get back to us with that.
Juan
>
> The idea that anyone has to "give back" what they worked for is a
> dangerous idea. You view yourself as on the bottom. Look at the guys
> pushing carts and "give back". As a matter of fact, why don't you
> join back and give it all to your idea!
> Socialism (look it up and define the word with a dictionary and not
> with emotionalism) did not work in Europe as it is a flawed idea.
> If you want something in life, go work for it. Or, put the hand that
> you seem to have out as a pan handler, put it to work. Work is
> honorable. Mooching really sucks.
> Palin / Hillary is percepeptual, I have a better perception. I
> support McCain and Palin. Everyone in our household will vote for
> them. They are not Socialists. They are Americans that work.
> Granted they were not Community Organisers and, frankly, do lack the
> organising skills. I worked in organised labor for decades in Las
> Vegas. I would rther vote to a man and Lady that have balls than
> anyone else. Sorry, we ha ve to agree to dissagree.
>
> Don
How many in your family now, Don?
BaJoRi
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C52D42F1.DCEE5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> "Tim Murray" <no-...@thankyou.com> stated in post
> 0001HW.C52D4B22...@216.77.188.18 on 10/28/08 8:05 PM:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:06:35 -0400, Snit wrote:
>>> Why should the wealthy corporations pay *less* in taxes (as a percent)
>>> than
>>> you or I, especially when they clearly benefit so much? The fact that
>>> they
>>> have employees and shareholders is not in contention.
>>
>> You don't own a business, do you?
>
> Yes, I do. My wife and I each have a business. Why do you ask?
>
>
to invest in real infrastructure, not just a new ass cushion for when you
watch Oprah and use a laptop to check out your eBay listings.
BaJoRi
"Elvis Kabong" <ampsc...@tuneland.com> wrote in message
news:32RNk.81177$XB4....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
> "BaJoRi" <baron...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:N0INk.192063$KY3.1...@fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>
>> "Rev. Dr. Rev. R. Ben Rand III, Esq, PhD" <fi...@absolution.coim> wrote
>> in message news:raeeg4paftne69827...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:54:45 -0600, "Kat" <k...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this?
>>>
>>>
>>> Um, yes, as he should be.
>>
>> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature that
>> if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned, you won't
>> work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Combine
>> that with the fact that if you don't like to work hard, and someone else
>> is going to take care of you, it gives you an excuse to be an even lazier
>> slob.
>
> Here's something to think about (not that I necessarily agree
> with it):
>
<snip> the rant that no one really cares about. In the end, as much as your
idea of socialism sounds great, and everybody is happy, and it is some type
of great utopia or panacea for the problems in the world, the facts are, due
to human nature, your idea of socialism can never work, as evinced by the
failure of the Eastern block, and every other society that has tried it.
RichL
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 08:27:11 -0500, RichL wrote:
>
>> We're already witnessing it. And "Barry" had nothing to do with it;
>> rather, it's been a consequence of the repeated actions of the
>> laissez-faire set both in the Republican party and a certain wing of
>> the Democratic party that has allowed it to happen. Stock market,
>> anyone?
>>
>> Unfettered capitalism is now recognized as being as dead as the
>> particular brand of Communism formerly practiced by the Soviet Union
>> and certain Eastern European nations.
>
> The current crisis was not caused by "unfettered capitalism". It was
> caused by the opposite: government meddling in and manipulation of a
> market, until trillions in bad debt was racked up by
> quasi-governmental lenders.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly played a role but it's by no means
the primary role. Investment houses, credit rating agencies, banks --
all *private* institutions -- have a larger role overall. And
regulations of these entities gradually eased up starting in the late
1970s, as both parties rejected Keynesian economics in favor of the
laissez-faire and "trickle-down" approaches.
>
> Blaming the current mess on a *lack* of government intervention is
> 1984- esque. Wake up.
You'd think that in contradicting the majority of the current wisdom on
the credit crisis, you'd back up your claims with a bit more than
overworn dogma.
>> Or of the coyotes running the stock
>> market seducing the suckers to enter their high-stakes poker game by
>> giving up guaranteed pension benefits in favor of 401K plans?
>
> You're ignorant. What do you think those pensions are/were invested
> in? Go count how many pensions have failed or been raided, and see if
> it's more or fewer than the number of 401(k) approved funds that have
> failed. Get back to us with that.
False dichotomy.
Pensions that failed or were "raided" suffered from insufficient
oversight. 401(k) approved funds don't tend to "fail" but rather to
decline in value precipitously or to oscillate wildly, especially
recently.
The fact that pensions were invested in the stock market is irrelevant
to my argument. Pensioners didn't have to worry about the details of
the investments because their pension value didn't depend on what
happened in the market. Rather, the organizations that managed the
pension funds were able to hire or contract out to experts who spent all
their working time monitoring the markets and the investments.
The rise of 401Ks shifted that responsibility to each individual who
then became an "investor" in the market whether he wanted to be or not,
and who could not devote even a slim fraction of the time to the task
that an "expert" could and had little of the knowledge necessary to do
so without being fleeced.
Hence the analogy with the high-stakes poker game. Think about it.
BaJoRi
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:86WdnV1Mpa0JcZrU...@supernews.com...
> John Black <jbl...@texas.net> wrote:
>> In article <N0INk.192063$KY3.1...@fe02.news.easynews.com>,
>> baron...@aol.com says...
>>>
>>> "Rev. Dr. Rev. R. Ben Rand III, Esq, PhD" <fi...@absolution.coim>
>>> wrote in message news:raeeg4paftne69827...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:54:45 -0600, "Kat" <k...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Obama's been put down as a Socialist for maybe wanting this?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Um, yes, as he should be.
>>>
>>> The whole idea behind socialism is flawed because it is human nature
>>> that if you work hard, and someone just takes what you have earned,
>>> you won't work as hard if you don't get to enjoy the fruits of your
>>> labor. Combine that with the fact that if you don't like to work
>>> hard, and someone else is going to take care of you, it gives you an
>>> excuse to be an even lazier slob.
>>
>> Beautifully concise refutation of Marxism. It took the complete
>> economic collapse of many nations to learn this simple lesson.
>
> And the greater flaw of capitalism is the assumption that people are
> rewarded equally for equally taxing work.
No such assumption exists. The beauty behind capitalism, is that if you
aren't paid enough, and someone else will pay you more, you move on. If
someone will not pay you more, you need to look inward as to why that might
be. It always cracks me up when some kid with droopy pants, underwear
showing, who can hardly speak understandable English, complains that he
can't find a high paying job. Well, cut your fucking hair, take a shower,
pull your pants up, buy a belt, and put some fucking effort in to it.
>
> It's simply not true. Far from it. A large fraction of the "lazy
> slobs" in a capitalist system are those at the top. Meanwhile, those at
> the middle of the societal latter (and below) slave away thinking that
> the capitalist system has somehow saved them from the gutter.
Many lazy slobs are at the top. I agree. Many were born to it (and I can
point out MANY families that were at the top, taken down by a lazy scion),
and still others lost the drive once they make it to the top. But the
scaleability for those who have the drive and ability is what makes this
country great, and to take that away from people for the sake of those at
the bottom who want nothing but handouts, while smoking crack and shooting
out kids to get that extra welfare dollar, is bullshit. .
KK
>> The current crisis was not caused by "unfettered capitalism". It was
>> caused by the opposite: government meddling in and manipulation of a
>> market, until trillions in bad debt was racked up by quasi-governmental
>> lenders.
>
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac certainly played a role but it's by no means
> the primary role. Investment houses, credit rating agencies, banks --
> all *private* institutions -- have a larger role overall.
All of them were invested in MBSs which had as their underlying commodity
the mortgages that, largely because of F&F, were incorrectly valued.
> And
> regulations of these entities gradually eased up starting in the late
> 1970s, as both parties rejected Keynesian economics in favor of the
> laissez-faire and "trickle-down" approaches.
Yes, and to very positive effect. Keynesianism is dead as dirt.
>
>
>> Blaming the current mess on a *lack* of government intervention is
>> 1984- esque. Wake up.
>
> You'd think that in contradicting the majority of the current wisdom on
> the credit crisis
Only if by 'current wisdom' you mean the horseshit that the politicians
are shoveling to deflect their own part in the crisis. Economists who
know better are saying the same thing and pointing their fingers in the
same direction.
>, you'd back up your claims with a bit more than
> overworn dogma.
It's not 'dogma' that F&F started this crisis.
>>> Or of the coyotes running the stock
>>> market seducing the suckers to enter their high-stakes poker game by
>>> giving up guaranteed pension benefits in favor of 401K plans?
>>
>> You're ignorant. What do you think those pensions are/were invested
>> in? Go count how many pensions have failed or been raided, and see if
>> it's more or fewer than the number of 401(k) approved funds that have
>> failed. Get back to us with that.
>
> False dichotomy.
You're the one who introduced the 'dichotomy'.
>
> Pensions that failed or were "raided" suffered from insufficient
> oversight. 401(k) approved funds don't tend to "fail" but rather to
> decline in value precipitously or to oscillate wildly, especially
> recently.
No, pretty much *only* recently, and only in funds recommended to people
for whom retirement is long enough away that this won't end up mattering
in the end.
>
> The fact that pensions were invested in the stock market is irrelevant
> to my argument.
Well, since you derided the "coyotes running the stock market" for
convincing "suckers" to switch to 401(k)s from pensions, the fact that
both are invested in the stock market is precisely relevant to your
argument, and, in fact, shows it as pretty ridiculous.
> Pensioners didn't have to worry about the details of
> the investments because their pension value didn't depend on what
> happened in the market.
No? How is an underfunded pension any better for its intended recipients
than a failed 401(k)?
> Rather, the organizations that managed the
> pension funds were able to hire or contract out to experts who spent all
> their working time monitoring the markets and the investments.
You mean, somehow unlike the companies who run the funds in whick 401(k)s
are invested?
>
> The rise of 401Ks shifted that responsibility to each individual who
> then became an "investor" in the market whether he wanted to be or not,
Both pensions and 401k(s) invest in the market. 401(k)s can be limited to
specific funds or (like most) give investors a choice as to what type of
fund they prefer - large/small cap, foreign/domestic, particular sectors,
equity/fixed income, etc., etc., etc.
Are you saying that's *bad*?
> and who could not devote even a slim fraction of the time to the task
> that an "expert" could and had little of the knowledge necessary to do
> so without being fleeced.
401(k) investors aren't being cajoled or pitched to by brokers or
salesmen. They aren't investing in individual stocks but in very
regulated funds for which the investment and disclosure requirements are
strict. The picture you're painting of people being "fleeced" by their
401(k) investments is a false one.
>
> Hence the analogy with the high-stakes poker game. Think about it.
You first.
Snit
e50Ok.685659$J72.3...@fe05.news.easynews.com on 10/29/08 9:22 AM:
>>>> Why should the wealthy corporations pay *less* in taxes (as a percent) than
>>>> you or I, especially when they clearly benefit so much? The fact that they
>>>> have employees and shareholders is not in contention.
>>>>
>>> You don't own a business, do you?
>>>
>> Yes, I do. My wife and I each have a business. Why do you ask?
>>
>>
> He meant a real business, with employees and payroll taxes, where you have to
> invest in real infrastructure, not just a new ass cushion for when you watch
> Oprah and use a laptop to check out your eBay listings.
>
Ah, and now you spew insults. Wah wah... a jealous Usenet loser spewed
insults at me.... and will soon spew denials. Oh, the pain, the pain!
--
You really have to give credit to Apple for driving innovation.
Steve Carroll
> You're very verby and argumentative. I'm trimming for brevity and
> clarity. If you don't like it, sorry.
>
>
>
> >>>>> Well, it depends on the business - right now, in the US, the
> >>>>> executives of many of the larger corporations are the recipients of
> >>>>> an outrageous percentage of the profit of the business. Being that
> >>>>> the businesses benefit so much from the "system", it makes no sense
> >>>>> to not require them to also give back to the "system"...
>
> >>>> And what qualifies you to make the blanket statement that
> >>>> shareholders are too stupid to decide who should run the companies
> >>>> they own?
>
> >>> What qualifies you to attribute *that* straw man to me? I said
> >>> *nothing* of who they should or should not pick. Not a *single* word.
>
> >> You suggest as a replacement to the current system one that requires
> >> them to give back to the system, because the executives are paid too
> >> much.
>
> > I disagree that one has to replace the entire system just to have
> > "executives" pay their fair share! Oh, and when did I say they should
> > pay their *fair* share because they are "paid too much"? You simply are
> > making things up.
>
> >> That means you want to take that power away from the shareholders, and
> >> increase the power government has over corporations.
>
> > Nope. Never said any such thing. You made that up.
Once again, Snit doesn't comprehend the implication of his own
argument.
> 1. "the executives ... are the recipients of an outrageous percentage of
> the profit"
>
> 2. "It makes no senst to not require them to ... give back to the system"
>
> Right now, shareholders decide executive pay. Your statement #1 declares
> that pay to be "outrageous", second-guessing shareholders.
Snit said the "percentage" was outrageous. Though I'm quite confident
he won't,
I'd like him to talk about what he considers to be a reasonable
"percentage".
RichL
I think you're mistaken, and I'll give you one example of why.
I was born into not-so-great economic circumstances. But I was given
the opportunity to go to college on a full ride by the state in which I
lived because of academic achievement. I later went on to grad school
and I have had a fulfilling and somewhat lucrative career.
However, my three sisters didn't have that opportunity handed to them,
and they have struggled much more than I have had to. And they are far
from the crack-smoking, welfare-cheat stereotype that you're relying on.
They are what we used to call blue-collar, keeping their heads above
water. They have rewarding lives in many respects but they have not had
anywhere near the opportunities that I have.
What's missing in your view is the element of luck. From what I've seen
close-up, luck plays a large role in this. It is not guaranteed by any
means that hard-working people will rise up the socio-economic ladder.
Some will fall due to circumstances beyond their control.
And if the state that I lived in did not intervene in the natural
workings of the capitalist system to ensure that I could go to college
despite not being able to afford it, I'd be in the same boat.
The whole idea that people who are not well of in the US are in that
situation because they deserve it is a load of crap.
Snit
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism can work... but few argue for
either. Most want a combo of the two, at least in the US.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing. - Unknown
KK
> I think you're mistaken, and I'll give you one example of why.
>
> I was born into not-so-great economic circumstances. But I was given
> the opportunity to go to college on a full ride by the state in which I
> lived because of academic achievement. I later went on to grad school
> and I have had a fulfilling and somewhat lucrative career.
>
> However, my three sisters didn't have that opportunity handed to them,
> and they have struggled much more than I have had to. And they are far
> from the crack-smoking, welfare-cheat stereotype that you're relying on.
> They are what we used to call blue-collar, keeping their heads above
> water. They have rewarding lives in many respects but they have not had
> anywhere near the opportunities that I have.
>
> What's missing in your view is the element of luck
Huh? You didn't attain your academic acheivement by "luck", and it
wasn't "luck" that kept your sisters from attaining the same.
Snit
on 10/29/08 10:24 AM:
Luck and opportunity provided by society... those things matter.
--
The fact that OS X is growing and Linux isn't, tells you that OS X is
offering things that Linux is not.
KK
> "KK" <_K...@furburger.net> stated in post
> J%0Ok.20325$UD6....@newsfe07.iad on 10/29/08 10:24 AM:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 11:59:27 -0500, RichL wrote:
>>
>>> I think you're mistaken, and I'll give you one example of why.
>>>
>>> I was born into not-so-great economic circumstances. But I was given
>>> the opportunity to go to college on a full ride by the state in which
>>> I lived because of academic achievement. I later went on to grad
>>> school and I have had a fulfilling and somewhat lucrative career.
>>>
>>> However, my three sisters didn't have that opportunity handed to them,
>>> and they have struggled much more than I have had to. And they are
>>> far from the crack-smoking, welfare-cheat stereotype that you're
>>> relying on. They are what we used to call blue-collar, keeping their
>>> heads above water. They have rewarding lives in many respects but
>>> they have not had anywhere near the opportunities that I have.
>>>
>>> What's missing in your view is the element of luck
>>
>>
>> Huh? You didn't attain your academic acheivement by "luck", and it
>> wasn't "luck" that kept your sisters from attaining the same.
>>
>>
> Luck and opportunity provided by society... those things matter.
Presumably scholarships like the one you got were available when your
sisters were of college age, but they didn't qualify for them. If that's
the case society didn't offer any less than they did for you.
And I'll repeat that their (and your) academic performance wasn't
"luck". Was it?
Snit
on 10/29/08 10:36 AM:
I have no sisters and had only one small scholarship which I earned in a
writing contest (though I am thankful I had that opportunity).
> And I'll repeat that their (and your) academic performance wasn't
> "luck". Was it?
It was a mix of luck and skill. Surely there were people as capable as I
was - or more - who were not in circumstances where they could use the same
opportunities I did. I am very thankful for the opportunities provided by
the society I live in... and realize not all people are so lucky. Most, in
fact, are not.
--
God made me an atheist - who are you to question his authority?
KK
>
> I have no sisters
Ok, I was answering RichL's post. Presumably you're not familiar with
the luck in his example.
Snit
on 10/29/08 12:23 PM:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 12:09:39 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I have no sisters
>
> Ok, I was answering RichL's post.
No, you were answering mine but thought it was his. No harm done, though.
:)
Still, I brought up some points you did not address.
> Presumably you're not familiar with
> the luck in his example.
--
Maveric
>>
>> Huh? You didn't attain your academic acheivement by "luck", and it
>> wasn't "luck" that kept your sisters from attaining the same.
>>
>>
> Luck and opportunity provided by society... those things matter.
>
>
Say, did you ever read this one?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79174
It seems that no one is allowed to view his birth certificate, and in two
different places no less. Something doesn't look Kosher here.
BaJoRi
So what you are saying is that you worked hard enough to get the state to
recognize you as a great investment, which they then proceeded to do. That
isn't a handout. You worked for the opportunity afforded to you by the
state.
I grew up in a lower middle class household also, where we ran our own
business. I put myself through college, and have a good career to show for
it. I worked for it. And to hell with any losers who don't want to do the
same, and sponge off the state and the taxes I pay.
>
> However, my three sisters didn't have that opportunity handed to them,
> and they have struggled much more than I have had to. And they are far
> from the crack-smoking, welfare-cheat stereotype that you're relying on.
> They are what we used to call blue-collar, keeping their heads above
> water. They have rewarding lives in many respects but they have not had
> anywhere near the opportunities that I have.
Could it be because you have worked harder (I am not saying they put no
efforts in to their lives, just that you have done more), have more ability,
and made better choices through your life?
>
> What's missing in your view is the element of luck. From what I've seen
> close-up, luck plays a large role in this. It is not guaranteed by any
> means that hard-working people will rise up the socio-economic ladder.
> Some will fall due to circumstances beyond their control.
Luck is important, without a doubt. But you tend to be luckier when you wok
harder at it. You can't be lucky if you don't even try.
>
> And if the state that I lived in did not intervene in the natural
> workings of the capitalist system to ensure that I could go to college
> despite not being able to afford it, I'd be in the same boat.
Again, that was the ultimate expression of capitalism: the state invested in
you, and has received a good ROI.
>
> The whole idea that people who are not well of in the US are in that
> situation because they deserve it is a load of crap.
>
>
You have just proven my point, without realizing it.
Snit
A_-dnRDQRcOJXZXU...@bresnan.com on 10/29/08 1:07 PM:
A wee bit off topic... but, I am curious, who generally has access to such
documents?
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
KK
> Again, that was the ultimate expression of capitalism: the state
> invested in you, and has received a good ROI.
Uh, barf. The state "invested" in him with money it confiscated from
other people, presumably against their will.
If it was really a good "investment", people would have invested
willingly.
RichL
I would think that most people in my state at the time would agree that
state-funded scholarships based on academic merit were a good idea.
RichL
Think about this. Does a guy like John McCain but without his family's
connections even get to see the inside of the Naval Academy? By his own
admission, his academic performance before he entered was mediocre at
best, and he didn't exactly shine there.
I don't disagree with you that people who were raised in less than ideal
circumstances can break through the barriers and make it in the system,
but what I'm saying is that people who have the advantages of family
connections have lower barriers and an easier time of it.
Snit
on 10/29/08 1:24 PM:
What an amazing idea... abolish taxes and have the government sell shares...
LOL! Amazing... just amazing.
--
Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments
that take our breath away.
Snit
m5CdnSWfn68xT5XU...@supernews.com on 10/29/08 2:16 PM:
>> You have just proven my point, without realizing it.
>
> Think about this. Does a guy like John McCain but without his family's
> connections even get to see the inside of the Naval Academy? By his own
> admission, his academic performance before he entered was mediocre at
> best, and he didn't exactly shine there.
>
> I don't disagree with you that people who were raised in less than ideal
> circumstances can break through the barriers and make it in the system,
> but what I'm saying is that people who have the advantages of family
> connections have lower barriers and an easier time of it.
The sad thing is something so obvious would have to be explained!
--
"Innovation is not about saying yes to everything. It's about saying NO to
all but the most crucial features." -- Steve Jobs
RichL
(1) There were considerably fewer scholarships than people who qualified
for them. One of my sisters would have earned one had that not been the
case.
(2) I have no doubt that if my sisters and I grew up in an
upper-middle-class family, they would be much better off now than they
are.
I think you severely underestimate the effect of wealth or lack thereof
upon opportunity in the US. I concede that the situation is much better
now than when I was growing up but I still think we have a long way to
go before we can claim that this disadvantage has been erased.
KK
Maybe. If so, why not cut out the middleman?