Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT : Scott Adams, "How Much Do The Rich Keep?"
23 views
Skip to first unread message
mo_ntresor
Apr 26, 2012, 9:47:52 AM4/26/12
to
http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/how_much_do_the_rich_keep/#SB_Comments
"What percent of a rich person's income does he spend on himself?
To simplify the writing here, assume our hypothetical rich person is a
guy. Let's say he pays about half of his income in taxes. That sounds
about right, especially if you include sales taxes and property taxes. Now
let's say he has a wife and three kids. Most of his living expenses, such
as his houses, benefit all five members of the family. So divide most of
his expenses by five to get his individual piece.
In our complicated world, the rich guy might have a first wife to whom he
pays alimony, or he might support some other family members who need some
help. And let's say he donates a healthy part of his income to charity.
So far, we've only discussed the money that flows in and out during the
rich guy's lifetime. The bulk of a rich guy's wealth passes to heirs.
Net it all out, and I'll bet your typical rich guy spends only 5% of his
income on himself. The rest goes to the government, family members, and
charity. Therefore, arguably, every time a rich guy gets up and goes to
work, it's 95% charity, roughly speaking.
Now let's say the rich guy made his money by starting a company that
employs a hundred people. Half of the firm's gross income might flow to
employees and investors. Then there is an economic multiplier effect as
those employees buy goods and services, and pay their own taxes. A wealthy
founder of a business might spend on himself only .001% of the gross
income his company generates.
I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used. And every
time he buys a Rolex instead of feeding a homeless family, he's not
exactly walking with the saints. That's what society teaches us to think.
I prefer to divide the world into two groups: People who are trying, and
people who aren't. I respect anyone who is making a constructive effort to
improve any part of the world, including his or her own little piece. When
people apply effort, wealth is mostly a result of luck, in terms of
genetics, geography, or timing. I don't begrudge anyone their luck."
mo_ntresor
-------
"What percent of a rich person's income does he spend on himself?
To simplify the writing here, assume our hypothetical rich person is a
guy. Let's say he pays about half of his income in taxes. That sounds
about right, especially if you include sales taxes and property taxes. Now
let's say he has a wife and three kids. Most of his living expenses, such
as his houses, benefit all five members of the family. So divide most of
his expenses by five to get his individual piece.
In our complicated world, the rich guy might have a first wife to whom he
pays alimony, or he might support some other family members who need some
help. And let's say he donates a healthy part of his income to charity.
So far, we've only discussed the money that flows in and out during the
rich guy's lifetime. The bulk of a rich guy's wealth passes to heirs.
Net it all out, and I'll bet your typical rich guy spends only 5% of his
income on himself. The rest goes to the government, family members, and
charity. Therefore, arguably, every time a rich guy gets up and goes to
work, it's 95% charity, roughly speaking.
Now let's say the rich guy made his money by starting a company that
employs a hundred people. Half of the firm's gross income might flow to
employees and investors. Then there is an economic multiplier effect as
those employees buy goods and services, and pay their own taxes. A wealthy
founder of a business might spend on himself only .001% of the gross
income his company generates.
I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used. And every
time he buys a Rolex instead of feeding a homeless family, he's not
exactly walking with the saints. That's what society teaches us to think.
I prefer to divide the world into two groups: People who are trying, and
people who aren't. I respect anyone who is making a constructive effort to
improve any part of the world, including his or her own little piece. When
people apply effort, wealth is mostly a result of luck, in terms of
genetics, geography, or timing. I don't begrudge anyone their luck."
mo_ntresor
-------
brewmaster
Apr 26, 2012, 10:26:39 AM4/26/12
to
people enough to pay for 1 day of debt interest. What was the number I
read? It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
pay off the current debt? LOL.
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
-----
Mossingen
Apr 26, 2012, 10:32:19 AM4/26/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:890o69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
Interesting way to look at it.
news:890o69x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
mo_ntresor
Apr 26, 2012, 10:43:13 AM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 8:26 AM, brewmaster wrote:
> > http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/how_much_do_the_rich_keep/#SB_Comments
that avoid taxation (long term buy and hold, carried interest, leverage
real estate with deductions, etc.) they'd deny others the very tools that
made them worth listening to. meanwhile, the nation's packed full of
people paying shit.
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
> > http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/how_much_do_the_rich_keep/#SB_Comments
> >
> > I prefer to divide the world into two groups: People who are trying, and
> > people who aren't. I respect anyone who is making a constructive effort to
> > improve any part of the world, including his or her own little piece. When
> > people apply effort, wealth is mostly a result of luck, in terms of
> > genetics, geography, or timing. I don't begrudge anyone their luck."
>
> > I prefer to divide the world into two groups: People who are trying, and
> > people who aren't. I respect anyone who is making a constructive effort to
> > improve any part of the world, including his or her own little piece. When
> > people apply effort, wealth is mostly a result of luck, in terms of
> > genetics, geography, or timing. I don't begrudge anyone their luck."
>
> But, but....we have to pass the Buffet rule so that we can tax those rich
> people enough to pay for 1 day of debt interest. What was the number I
> read? It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
> pay off the current debt? LOL.
the ultra rich hypocrites have all built tremendous wealth via strategies
> people enough to pay for 1 day of debt interest. What was the number I
> read? It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
> pay off the current debt? LOL.
that avoid taxation (long term buy and hold, carried interest, leverage
real estate with deductions, etc.) they'd deny others the very tools that
made them worth listening to. meanwhile, the nation's packed full of
people paying shit.
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
Apr 26, 2012, 10:48:22 AM4/26/12
to
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
mo_ntresor
Apr 26, 2012, 11:17:08 AM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 8:48 AM, brewmaster wrote:
> Hey mo, did you get my email?
sorry. all my public email addys are nonsense. i replied.
> Hey mo, did you get my email?
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
ChrisRobin
Apr 26, 2012, 12:04:31 PM4/26/12
to
turd.
-----
VegasJerry
Apr 26, 2012, 12:04:18 PM4/26/12
to
> What was the number I read?
to fight for them and their special, lower, tax rate.
Jerry (who needs his car washed - you available?) 'n Vegas
It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
> pay off the current debt? LOL.
>
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> -----
mo_ntresor
Apr 26, 2012, 12:13:28 PM4/26/12
to
average schmo what he'd do if he won $10M, and the answer is always some
ludicrous amount of spending. it's a claim to buy his whole family houses
and pay for all the kids' college. most people haven't got a clue that
$10M is actually $6M, and that every house you buy creates tax liability
near 2% ANNUALLY, that 4% on the 6M is $240k, but you're paying $50k of
that in taxes every year.
people are just idiots. you see it here on rgp, clueless idiots.
mo_ntresor
-------
ChrisRobin
Apr 26, 2012, 12:48:46 PM4/26/12
to
people with kids, ex-wives, and property taxes. Oh, but I forgot – all
turds are JOB CREATORS. Lol!
--------
brewmaster
Apr 26, 2012, 12:56:10 PM4/26/12
to
>
> Jerry (who needs his car washed - you available?) 'n Vegas
mo_ntresor
Apr 26, 2012, 12:54:15 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 10:48 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > he's speaking from experience. it reminds me of the lottery. you ask the
> > average schmo what he'd do if he won $10M, and the answer is always some
> > ludicrous amount of spending. it's a claim to buy his whole family houses
> > and pay for all the kids' college. most people haven't got a clue that
> > $10M is actually $6M, and that every house you buy creates tax liability
> > near 2% ANNUALLY, that 4% on the 6M is $240k, but you're paying $50k of
> > that in taxes every year.
> >
> > people are just idiots. you see it here on rgp, clueless idiots.
>
> Speaking of idiots, it's as if the author thinks rich turds are the only
> people with kids, ex-wives, and property taxes. Oh, but I forgot – all
> turds are JOB CREATORS. Lol!
he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
> > he's speaking from experience. it reminds me of the lottery. you ask the
> > average schmo what he'd do if he won $10M, and the answer is always some
> > ludicrous amount of spending. it's a claim to buy his whole family houses
> > and pay for all the kids' college. most people haven't got a clue that
> > $10M is actually $6M, and that every house you buy creates tax liability
> > near 2% ANNUALLY, that 4% on the 6M is $240k, but you're paying $50k of
> > that in taxes every year.
> >
> > people are just idiots. you see it here on rgp, clueless idiots.
>
> Speaking of idiots, it's as if the author thinks rich turds are the only
> people with kids, ex-wives, and property taxes. Oh, but I forgot – all
> turds are JOB CREATORS. Lol!
lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
person can do anything BUT create jobs.
mo_ntresor
-----
Tim Norfolk
Apr 26, 2012, 2:57:50 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26, 10:43 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Don't forget Paulson's dodge of paying yourself by taking a loan
against your assets.
wrote:
against your assets.
mo_ntresor
Apr 26, 2012, 3:29:29 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 12:57 PM, Tim Norfolk wrote:
> > the ultra rich hypocrites have all built tremendous wealth via strategies
> > that avoid taxation (long term buy and hold, carried interest, leverage
> > real estate with deductions, etc.) they'd deny others the very tools that
> > made them worth listening to. meanwhile, the nation's packed full of
> > people paying shit.
>
> > the ultra rich hypocrites have all built tremendous wealth via strategies
> > that avoid taxation (long term buy and hold, carried interest, leverage
> > real estate with deductions, etc.) they'd deny others the very tools that
> > made them worth listening to. meanwhile, the nation's packed full of
> > people paying shit.
>
> Don't forget Paulson's dodge of paying yourself by taking a loan
> against your assets.
end exemptions and deductions, income classifications, entity taxation,
> against your assets.
then mark everybody to market every year. tax net at two or three lower
rates. accountants and lawyers would have a fit, but they're waste anyway.
mo_ntresor
________________________________________________________________________
ChrisRobin
Apr 26, 2012, 5:26:38 PM4/26/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 12:54 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
> lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
> person can do anything BUT create jobs.
I'll say one thing for rich turds – they certainly keep the talking points
> he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
> lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
> person can do anything BUT create jobs.
industry at full employment!
------
VegasJerry
Apr 26, 2012, 6:17:35 PM4/26/12
to
Jerry
>
> >
> > Jerry (who needs his car washed - you available?) 'n Vegas
>
> I don't wash cars, even my own.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
> > > pay off the current debt? LOL.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > >
> > > -----
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> -----
VegasJerry
Apr 26, 2012, 6:19:44 PM4/26/12
to
_______________________________________________________________________
brewmaster
Apr 26, 2012, 6:32:04 PM4/26/12
to
>
>
> Jerry
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Jerry (who needs his car washed - you available?) 'n Vegas
> >
> > I don't wash cars, even my own.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
> > > > pay off the current debt? LOL.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> >
> > -----
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
VegasJerry
Apr 26, 2012, 7:00:38 PM4/26/12
to
>
> >
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry (who needs his car washed - you available?) 'n Vegas
> > >
> > > I don't wash cars, even my own.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
> > > > > pay off the current debt? LOL.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > >
> > > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > >
> > > -----
> >
> > ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> -------
brewmaster
Apr 26, 2012, 7:08:59 PM4/26/12
to
You are a riot, you constantly demand cites from people, but refuse to
ever give your own. You demand answers to your questions, but never
answer any. You constantly tell people to stop making up positions for
you, but you do it in practically every post. Do you understand why
virtually every rgper thinks you are an idiot?
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Jerry (who needs his car washed - you available?) 'n Vegas
> > > >
> > > > I don't wash cars, even my own.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule to
> > > > > > pay off the current debt? LOL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > >
> > > > >
______________________________________________________________________
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > > >
> > > > -----
> > >
> > > ________________________________________________________________________
> >
> >
> > --
> > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> >
> > -------
>
> ----
--
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
gtech1
Apr 26, 2012, 9:05:46 PM4/26/12
to
Yeah, I wouldn't even want $10M if somebody offered it to me, what with
all those taxes and so forth.
______________________________________________________________________
all those taxes and so forth.
Pepe Papon
Apr 27, 2012, 3:02:04 AM4/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:47:52 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
>lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
>lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
mo_ntresor
Apr 27, 2012, 9:51:00 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 3:26 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
> > lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
> > person can do anything BUT create jobs.
>
> I'll say one thing for rich turds – they certainly keep the talking points
> industry at full employment!
how could a wealthy person do anything but create jobs?
> > he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
> > lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
> > person can do anything BUT create jobs.
>
> I'll say one thing for rich turds – they certainly keep the talking points
> industry at full employment!
mo_ntresor
________________________________________________________________________
mo_ntresor
Apr 27, 2012, 10:41:56 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>
> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>
> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
mo_ntresor
_____________________________________________________________________
mo_ntresor
Apr 27, 2012, 10:41:01 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 26 2012 7:05 PM, gtech1 wrote:
> Yeah, I wouldn't even want $10M if somebody offered it to me, what with
> all those taxes and so forth.
top posting dipshit can't even understand the issue being discussed.
> Yeah, I wouldn't even want $10M if somebody offered it to me, what with
> all those taxes and so forth.
mo_ntresor
_______________________________________________________________________
ChrisRobin
Apr 27, 2012, 1:30:43 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27 2012 9:51 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> how could a wealthy person do anything but create jobs?
How could a leprechaun do anything but piss rainbows?
> how could a wealthy person do anything but create jobs?
------
VegasJerry
Apr 27, 2012, 5:33:45 PM4/27/12
to
> but refuse to ever give your own.
>You demand answers to your questions,
> but never answer any.
Look, you fucking idiot. You're desperate, as usual. Like I instructed,
just STFU.
Jerry
You constantly tell people to stop making up positions for
> you, but you do it in practically every post. Do you understand why
> virtually every rgper thinks you are an idiot?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jerry (who needs his car washed - you available?) 'n Vegas
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't wash cars, even my own.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would take 140 years of taxing the rich with the buffet rule
to
> > > > > > > pay off the current debt? LOL.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> ______________________________________________________________________
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > >
> > > >
________________________________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Brew "part of the 100%" Master
> > >
> > > -------
> >
> > ----
>
>
> --
> Brew "part of the 100%" Master
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
David Monaghan
Apr 27, 2012, 8:21:18 PM4/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 09:54:15 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
>lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
>person can do anything BUT create jobs.
I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that money, by itself,
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
>lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
>person can do anything BUT create jobs.
creates jobs, or that there's something special about it being concentrated
in one person's hands, that gives it this ability?
DaveM
mo_ntresor
Apr 27, 2012, 10:18:43 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27 2012 6:21 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
> >lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
> >person can do anything BUT create jobs.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that money, by itself,
> creates jobs, or that there's something special about it being concentrated
> in one person's hands, that gives it this ability?
yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
> >he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
> >lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
> >person can do anything BUT create jobs.
>
> I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that money, by itself,
> creates jobs, or that there's something special about it being concentrated
> in one person's hands, that gives it this ability?
creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
mo_ntresor
______________________________________________________________________
David Monaghan
Apr 27, 2012, 10:33:09 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:18:43 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27 2012 6:21 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
>> >lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
>> >person can do anything BUT create jobs.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that money, by itself,
>> creates jobs, or that there's something special about it being concentrated
>> in one person's hands, that gives it this ability?
>
>yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
>creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
"concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27 2012 6:21 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >he's asking the average american democrat to think and do math. it's a
>> >lot to ask. forget that for a minute, tell me how you believe a wealthy
>> >person can do anything BUT create jobs.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying that money, by itself,
>> creates jobs, or that there's something special about it being concentrated
>> in one person's hands, that gives it this ability?
>
>yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
>creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
DaveM
ChrisRobin
Apr 28, 2012, 12:21:06 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27 2012 10:18 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
> creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
You should fund a start-up that specializes in moving goalposts, maybe
> yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
> creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
it'll create some jobs.
____________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
Apr 28, 2012, 3:46:02 AM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
>> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>>
>> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
>
>h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
>> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>>
>> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
>
>h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
standard right-wing talking point.
TruthSeeker
Apr 28, 2012, 11:56:49 AM4/28/12
to
to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
TruthSeeker
Apr 28, 2012, 11:57:58 AM4/28/12
to
On 4/27/12 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
more widely?"
mo_ntresor
Apr 28, 2012, 12:02:53 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27 2012 10:21 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
> > creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
>
> You should fund a start-up that specializes in moving goalposts, maybe
> it'll create some jobs.
sounds good! let's get the government to save union jobs at auto
> > yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
> > creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
>
> You should fund a start-up that specializes in moving goalposts, maybe
> it'll create some jobs.
companies, preserve union jobs at failing schools, forgive debt for
students who've made mindless decisions, extend everybody's unemployment
benefits, and hand everybody free healthcare. we need people to manage
all of this, so let's create some departments and new government agencies.
paying for it, well, that's a different story ... but for democrats,
that's not what government's supposed to do, that's what the rich people
are supposed to do ... even though the math doesn't work.
mo_ntresor
-----
mo_ntresor
Apr 28, 2012, 12:07:04 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27 2012 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
> >creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
>
> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
the most jobs isn't the goal. do we need more grocery baggers, idiot
> >yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
> >creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
>
> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
"educators", union foremen, ticket collectors? a person seeking real
returns employs capital in more innovative areas of the economy than lower
and middle earners ever could (residual).
mo_ntresor
----
bratt
Apr 28, 2012, 12:22:49 PM4/28/12
to
wealth" around that a lot of people took exception to. Most sane people
know that wealth is NOT redistributed, and/or spread - it is earned.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
____________________________________________________________________
mo_ntresor
Apr 28, 2012, 12:26:32 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28 2012 10:22 AM, bratt wrote:
> > And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
> > to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
> > it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>
> Changing the name to "fair share" is in response to his "spread the
> wealth" around that a lot of people took exception to. Most sane people
> know that wealth is NOT redistributed, and/or spread - it is earned.
people who buy the democrat political nonsense live in the mythical world
> > And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
> > to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
> > it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>
> Changing the name to "fair share" is in response to his "spread the
> wealth" around that a lot of people took exception to. Most sane people
> know that wealth is NOT redistributed, and/or spread - it is earned.
where your problems are everybody else's fault.
mo_ntresor
______________________________________________________________________
mo_ntresor
Apr 28, 2012, 1:00:01 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27 2012 11:30 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:
> > how could a wealthy person do anything but create jobs?
>
> How could a leprechaun do anything but piss rainbows?
you still can't come up with anything?
> > how could a wealthy person do anything but create jobs?
>
> How could a leprechaun do anything but piss rainbows?
mo_ntresor
-------
David Monaghan
Apr 28, 2012, 2:58:21 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
wrote:
>On 4/27/12 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>
>And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>more widely?"
"Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that? If I had a mind to get
involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of wealth, I wouldn't use
morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't use morality as the
argument in favour of a pure free market. I can argue both positions equally
well.
Say - just to make it interesting - why don't _you_ take the side of arguing
for a flatter distribution of income? Just to show you understand the
argument, you understand.
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/27/12 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>
>And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>more widely?"
involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of wealth, I wouldn't use
morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't use morality as the
argument in favour of a pure free market. I can argue both positions equally
well.
Say - just to make it interesting - why don't _you_ take the side of arguing
for a flatter distribution of income? Just to show you understand the
argument, you understand.
DaveM
David Monaghan
Apr 28, 2012, 3:08:29 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:07:04 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27 2012 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
>> >creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
>>
>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>
>the most jobs isn't the goal. do we need more grocery baggers, idiot
>"educators", union foremen, ticket collectors?
I don't know. Neither do you, and neither of us care - it's for the market
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 27 2012 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >yes, money seeking significant returns concentrated in certain hands
>> >creates jobs and industries outside essentials.
>>
>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>
>the most jobs isn't the goal. do we need more grocery baggers, idiot
>"educators", union foremen, ticket collectors?
to decide, isn't it?
>A person seeking real returns employs capital in more innovative areas of
>the economy than lower and middle earners ever could (residual).
You're describing entrepreneurs. They aren't the most common kind of rich
person, you know. But perhaps, I'm wrong: Do you have evidence to back up
this assertion, or is it just an article of faith?
DaveM
VegasJerry
Apr 28, 2012, 3:16:16 PM4/28/12
to
Jerry
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
>
> "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
mo_ntresor
Apr 28, 2012, 3:20:51 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28 2012 1:08 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >the most jobs isn't the goal. do we need more grocery baggers, idiot
> >"educators", union foremen, ticket collectors?
>
> I don't know. Neither do you, and neither of us care - it's for the market
> to decide, isn't it?
when you tax wealth, you let government re-decide something the market
> >the most jobs isn't the goal. do we need more grocery baggers, idiot
> >"educators", union foremen, ticket collectors?
>
> I don't know. Neither do you, and neither of us care - it's for the market
> to decide, isn't it?
already has.
> >A person seeking real returns employs capital in more innovative areas of
> >the economy than lower and middle earners ever could (residual).
>
> You're describing entrepreneurs. They aren't the most common kind of rich
> person, you know. But perhaps, I'm wrong: Do you have evidence to back up
> this assertion, or is it just an article of faith?
essentials, and it doesn't sit under the mattress.
mo_ntresor
---
VegasJerry
Apr 28, 2012, 3:18:11 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28 2012 9:22 AM, bratt wrote:
> On Apr 28 2012 10:56 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > On 4/28/12 1:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
> > > <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he
> has a
> > >>>> lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
> > >>>
> > >>> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
> > >>
> > >> h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
> > > standard right-wing talking point.
> >
> > And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
> > to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
> > it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>
> Changing the name to "fair share" is in response to his "spread the
> wealth" around that a lot of people took exception to. Most sane people
> know that wealth is NOT redistributed, and/or spread - it is earned.
No, it is not earned when your tax rate is lower than others.
> On Apr 28 2012 10:56 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> > On 4/28/12 1:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
> > > <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he
> has a
> > >>>> lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
> > >>>
> > >>> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
> > >>
> > >> h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
> > >
> > > Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
> > > standard right-wing talking point.
> >
> > And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
> > to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
> > it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>
> Changing the name to "fair share" is in response to his "spread the
> wealth" around that a lot of people took exception to. Most sane people
> know that wealth is NOT redistributed, and/or spread - it is earned.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
David Monaghan
Apr 28, 2012, 4:00:48 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:20:51 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 1:08 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >the most jobs isn't the goal. do we need more grocery baggers, idiot
>> >"educators", union foremen, ticket collectors?
>>
>> I don't know. Neither do you, and neither of us care - it's for the market
>> to decide, isn't it?
>
>when you tax wealth, you let government re-decide something the market
>already has.
That applies to all taxation no matter how the burden is distributed. Unless
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 1:08 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >the most jobs isn't the goal. do we need more grocery baggers, idiot
>> >"educators", union foremen, ticket collectors?
>>
>> I don't know. Neither do you, and neither of us care - it's for the market
>> to decide, isn't it?
>
>when you tax wealth, you let government re-decide something the market
>already has.
you're arguing for a Somali style anarchy, taxes have to raised for
governance, and the way that tax is raised will distort markets.
>> >A person seeking real returns employs capital in more innovative areas of
>> >the economy than lower and middle earners ever could (residual).
>>
>> You're describing entrepreneurs. They aren't the most common kind of rich
>> person, you know. But perhaps, I'm wrong: Do you have evidence to back up
>> this assertion, or is it just an article of faith?
>
>no, i'm describing the wealthy. their residual (savings) doesn't pay for
>essentials, and it doesn't sit under the mattress.
philosophical position, and I don't accept your contention. Someone with
wealth, who's not an entrepreneur has no rational reason to take risks with
their future. What they want to do is protect their money from taxation and
inflation, not gamble it on a whim. OTOH, someone whose wealth won't provide
the kind of future they want has more incentive to risk it on innovative
gambles and less incentive to protect it.
DaveM
mo_ntresor
Apr 28, 2012, 4:31:21 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28 2012 2:00 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >when you tax wealth, you let government re-decide something the market
> >already has.
>
> That applies to all taxation no matter how the burden is distributed. Unless
> you're arguing for a Somali style anarchy, taxes have to raised for
> governance, and the way that tax is raised will distort markets.
not it doesn't apply to all taxation. it applies to wealth and income
> >when you tax wealth, you let government re-decide something the market
> >already has.
>
> That applies to all taxation no matter how the burden is distributed. Unless
> you're arguing for a Somali style anarchy, taxes have to raised for
> governance, and the way that tax is raised will distort markets.
taxation. use taxes don't distort wealth distribution; they increase
costs and incentives for alternatives.
> >no, i'm describing the wealthy. their residual (savings) doesn't pay for
> >essentials, and it doesn't sit under the mattress.
>
> That's fine. If you don't have evidence, I'm happy to argue from a
> philosophical position, and I don't accept your contention. Someone with
> wealth, who's not an entrepreneur has no rational reason to take risks with
> their future. What they want to do is protect their money from taxation and
> inflation, not gamble it on a whim. OTOH, someone whose wealth won't provide
> the kind of future they want has more incentive to risk it on innovative
> gambles and less incentive to protect it.
theoretical. anyone but an idiot will seek to protect wealth from
inflation and confiscation. the means for doing so consist of investing
in various assets (tangibles: land, metal, etc; paper: cds, stocks,
bonds, etc.). name one investment strategy that doesn't result in job
creation.
i have no idea what you're talking about in the last sentence. gamble on
a whim? plenty of wealthy people seed ventures, themselves or through vc
firms. try building a company without investment or capital and let me
know how it goes.
mo_ntresor
_______________________________________________________________________
David Monaghan
Apr 28, 2012, 7:38:09 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:31:21 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 2:00 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >when you tax wealth, you let government re-decide something the market
>> >already has.
>>
>> That applies to all taxation no matter how the burden is distributed. Unless
>> you're arguing for a Somali style anarchy, taxes have to raised for
>> governance, and the way that tax is raised will distort markets.
>
>not it doesn't apply to all taxation. it applies to wealth and income
>taxation. use taxes don't distort wealth distribution; they increase
>costs and incentives for alternatives.
It distorts the market prices, and from that the profits traders can make,
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 2:00 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >when you tax wealth, you let government re-decide something the market
>> >already has.
>>
>> That applies to all taxation no matter how the burden is distributed. Unless
>> you're arguing for a Somali style anarchy, taxes have to raised for
>> governance, and the way that tax is raised will distort markets.
>
>not it doesn't apply to all taxation. it applies to wealth and income
>taxation. use taxes don't distort wealth distribution; they increase
>costs and incentives for alternatives.
and from that the wealth of those who income depends on those profits. The
effect isn't so direct, but it still occurs.
>> >no, i'm describing the wealthy. their residual (savings) doesn't pay for
>> >essentials, and it doesn't sit under the mattress.
>>
>> That's fine. If you don't have evidence, I'm happy to argue from a
>> philosophical position, and I don't accept your contention. Someone with
>> wealth, who's not an entrepreneur has no rational reason to take risks with
>> their future. What they want to do is protect their money from taxation and
>> inflation, not gamble it on a whim. OTOH, someone whose wealth won't provide
>> the kind of future they want has more incentive to risk it on innovative
>> gambles and less incentive to protect it.
>
>if you want to pretend there's no evidence,
evidence, we don't need to deal in opinions.
>I'm happy to argue in the
>theoretical. anyone but an idiot will seek to protect wealth from
>inflation and confiscation. the means for doing so consist of investing
>in various assets (tangibles: land, metal, etc; paper: cds, stocks,
>bonds, etc.). name one investment strategy that doesn't result in job
>creation.
How many jobs are created by buying Old Masters or land. How many jobs are
>inflation and confiscation. the means for doing so consist of investing
>in various assets (tangibles: land, metal, etc; paper: cds, stocks,
>bonds, etc.). name one investment strategy that doesn't result in job
>creation.
created by Ponzi schemes? How many jobs are created by buying Government
bonds - especially foreign government stock?
>i have no idea what you're talking about in the last sentence. gamble on
>a whim? plenty of wealthy people seed ventures, themselves or through vc
>firms. try building a company without investment or capital and let me
>know how it goes.
directly or indirectly, or have money in the bank which is loaned to those
same ventures. You're confusing the effect of money per se with the effect
of concentrating it in the hands of individual.
DaveM
Pepe Papon
Apr 29, 2012, 3:51:18 AM4/29/12
to
would be created by loan forgiveness or extending employment benefits?
What departments new departments are being created by not disbanding
unions?
Pepe Papon
Apr 29, 2012, 3:52:20 AM4/29/12
to
TruthSeeker
Apr 29, 2012, 8:10:50 PM4/29/12
to
On 4/28/12 1:16 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 28 2012 8:56 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>> And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
>> to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
>> it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
> And you see something wrong in fair share?
As used by Obama and other politicians, yes. Because there is nothing
> On Apr 28 2012 8:56 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>> And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
>> to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
>> it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
> And you see something wrong in fair share?
"fair" about what they are pushing. It is just a code for income
redistribution and envy of those who earn more, using a phrase that many
people will like without looking behind the curtain at its implications.
TruthSeeker
Apr 29, 2012, 8:12:59 PM4/29/12
to
otherwise. Envy of those who earn more is a long-time and widely-used
emotional appeal of Left-wing politicians (and even some moderate ones).
Not good work.
TruthSeeker
Apr 29, 2012, 8:15:04 PM4/29/12
to
On 4/28/12 12:58 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/12 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>
>>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>>
>> And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>> more widely?"
>
> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
Oh, so you are just opportunistic, using government force to
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/27/12 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>
>>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>>
>> And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>> more widely?"
>
> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
redistribute income not because it's right but because it's something
you want?
David Monaghan
Apr 29, 2012, 8:20:00 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:04 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
No. I never said that. Why did you snip the relevant part of my post?
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/28/12 12:58 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/12 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>>
>>>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>>>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>>>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>>>
>>> And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>>> more widely?"
>>
>> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
>
>Oh, so you ... just ... redistribute income ... because it's right...?
>On 4/28/12 12:58 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/27/12 8:33 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>>
>>>> "concentrated in certain hands"? Of course, who could disagree with that? -
>>>> but whether that money concentrated in "other" hands creates more jobs than
>>>> the same money distributed more widely is a much more debatable issue.
>>>
>>> And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>>> more widely?"
>>
>> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
>
No. I never said that. Why did you snip the relevant part of my post?
DaveM
Pepe Papon
Apr 29, 2012, 9:47:28 PM4/29/12
to
Pepe Papon
Apr 29, 2012, 9:53:11 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:12:59 -0600, TruthSeeker
man is. Of course it's a straw man. In Jerry-speak, you're making
up a position for me. You're pretending it's all about envy. I've
never said nor implied any such thing. You made it up.
Oh, and you're confused about that whole burden of proof thingy.
You're the one who made up the "envy" position. It's up to you to
defend it. It's not up to me to prove that the position you made up
for me is wrong.
> Envy of those who earn more is a long-time and widely-used
>emotional appeal of Left-wing politicians (and even some moderate ones).
> Not good work.
So is making up positions for people.
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 4/29/12 1:52 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:56:49 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/12 1:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
>>>> <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
>>>>>>> lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
>>>>>
>>>>> h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
>>>> standard right-wing talking point.
>>>
>>> And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
>>> to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
>>> it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>>
>> Time to trot out the class-envy strawman, right on cue! Good work.
>
>I see you're trotting out the straw-man claim for what you cannot defend
>otherwise.
I'm starting to think that you don't really understand what a straw
>On 4/29/12 1:52 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:56:49 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/12 1:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
>>>> <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has a
>>>>>>> lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
>>>>>
>>>>> h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
>>>> standard right-wing talking point.
>>>
>>> And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
>>> to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
>>> it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>>
>> Time to trot out the class-envy strawman, right on cue! Good work.
>
>I see you're trotting out the straw-man claim for what you cannot defend
>otherwise.
man is. Of course it's a straw man. In Jerry-speak, you're making
up a position for me. You're pretending it's all about envy. I've
never said nor implied any such thing. You made it up.
Oh, and you're confused about that whole burden of proof thingy.
You're the one who made up the "envy" position. It's up to you to
defend it. It's not up to me to prove that the position you made up
for me is wrong.
> Envy of those who earn more is a long-time and widely-used
>emotional appeal of Left-wing politicians (and even some moderate ones).
> Not good work.
mo_ntresor
Apr 30, 2012, 11:46:03 AM4/30/12
to
On Apr 28 2012 5:38 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >not it doesn't apply to all taxation. it applies to wealth and income
> >taxation. use taxes don't distort wealth distribution; they increase
> >costs and incentives for alternatives.
>
> It distorts the market prices, and from that the profits traders can make,
> and from that the wealth of those who income depends on those profits. The
> effect isn't so direct, but it still occurs.
there's no reason to believe consumption taxes would create either price
> >not it doesn't apply to all taxation. it applies to wealth and income
> >taxation. use taxes don't distort wealth distribution; they increase
> >costs and incentives for alternatives.
>
> It distorts the market prices, and from that the profits traders can make,
> and from that the wealth of those who income depends on those profits. The
> effect isn't so direct, but it still occurs.
distortions or intra-market arbitrages. have ye little faith in the
"fairness" of your government masters?
> >if you want to pretend there's no evidence,
>
> Whoa there! I invited you to state your evidence and you didn't. If you have
> evidence, we don't need to deal in opinions.
won't be swayed, so why bother?
> >I'm happy to argue in the
> >theoretical. anyone but an idiot will seek to protect wealth from
> >inflation and confiscation. the means for doing so consist of investing
> >in various assets (tangibles: land, metal, etc; paper: cds, stocks,
> >bonds, etc.). name one investment strategy that doesn't result in job
> >creation.
>
> How many jobs are created by buying Old Masters or land. How many jobs are
> created by Ponzi schemes? How many jobs are created by buying Government
> bonds - especially foreign government stock?
aspiring hirsts trying to relieve the morons of some of those dollars?
how about brokerages and new online businesses for price discover on
illiquid assets? how about income on the land with general or ag
improvements? how about scientific yield work to improve returns? i
can't counter every madoff, but arguing specifics is nonsense.
how does handing the average poor guy another forty and a snickers help
anybody?
> >i have no idea what you're talking about in the last sentence. gamble on
> >a whim? plenty of wealthy people seed ventures, themselves or through vc
> >firms. try building a company without investment or capital and let me
> >know how it goes.
>
> "Plenty" of people. So not all. And plenty of less wealthy people own share,
> directly or indirectly, or have money in the bank which is loaned to those
> same ventures. You're confusing the effect of money per se with the effect
> of concentrating it in the hands of individual.
the "investments" the average hump at the low end of the income
distribution makes is ignorantly allocated. are you american? are you
familiar with the stellar work of government pension intermediaries? the
fees alone on 401k plans are enough to destroy any wealth creation, and
all they do is feed another nonsense government "industry" that does
nothing but fuck ignorant people over.
mo_ntresor
------
Truthseeker
Apr 30, 2012, 12:01:00 PM4/30/12
to
On 4/29/12 6:20 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:04 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/12 12:58 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:04 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/28/12 12:58 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>>>> And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>>>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>>>> more widely?"
>>> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
>> Oh, so you ... just ... redistribute income ... because it's right...?
> No. I never said that. Why did you snip the relevant part of my post?
Did I? Which part was that? I was addressing your question as to why
>>>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>>>> more widely?"
>>> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
>> Oh, so you ... just ... redistribute income ... because it's right...?
> No. I never said that. Why did you snip the relevant part of my post?
you should justify the morality of what you are calling for.
Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited:
"Oh, so you are just opportunistic, using government force to
redistribute income not because it's right but because it's something
you want?"
of it is unimportant? Or even why it is or is not opportunistic?
Now, if you just concede that it is immoral but you want to do it
anyway, no further explanation is needed.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Apr 30, 2012, 1:02:33 PM4/30/12
to
On 4/29/12 7:53 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:12:59 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> On 4/29/12 1:52 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> Time to trot out the class-envy strawman, right on cue! Good work.
>> I see you're trotting out the straw-man claim for what you cannot defend
>> otherwise.
> I'm starting to think that you don't really understand what a straw
> man is. Of course it's a straw man. In Jerry-speak, you're making
> up a position for me. You're pretending it's all about envy. I've
> never said nor implied any such thing. You made it up.
Oh no you don't It is not a straw man, and I don't pretend that it's
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:12:59 -0600, TruthSeeker
> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> On 4/29/12 1:52 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> Time to trot out the class-envy strawman, right on cue! Good work.
>> I see you're trotting out the straw-man claim for what you cannot defend
>> otherwise.
> I'm starting to think that you don't really understand what a straw
> man is. Of course it's a straw man. In Jerry-speak, you're making
> up a position for me. You're pretending it's all about envy. I've
> never said nor implied any such thing. You made it up.
"all about" envy. Envy of those who earn more than you do is something
that is exploited by the Left but it is not "all about" that. That's a
position that YOU are making up.
--
Truthseeker
David Monaghan
Apr 30, 2012, 5:53:27 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:01:00 -0600, Truthseeker <truth...@nospam.us>
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 6:20 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:04 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/12 12:58 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>
>>>>> And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>>>>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>>>>> more widely?"
>
>>>> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
>
>>> Oh, so you ... just ... redistribute income ... because it's right...?
>
>> No. I never said that. Why did you snip the relevant part of my post?
>
>Did I? Which part was that? I was addressing your question as to why
>you should justify the morality of what you are calling for.
>
>Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited:
>
>"Oh, so you are just opportunistic, using government force to
>redistribute income not because it's right but because it's something
>you want?"
Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited out, too:
"If I had a mind to get involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of
wealth, I wouldn't use morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't
use morality as the argument in favour of a pure free market."
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/29/12 6:20 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 18:15:04 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/28/12 12:58 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:57:58 -0600, TruthSeeker<Truth...@nospam.us>
>
>>>>> And how do you morally justify taking money away from people who have
>>>>> more than you think they need, and giving it to others, to "distribute
>>>>> more widely?"
>
>>>> "Morally justify"? Why would I have to do that?
>
>>> Oh, so you ... just ... redistribute income ... because it's right...?
>
>> No. I never said that. Why did you snip the relevant part of my post?
>
>Did I? Which part was that? I was addressing your question as to why
>you should justify the morality of what you are calling for.
>
>Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited:
>
>"Oh, so you are just opportunistic, using government force to
>redistribute income not because it's right but because it's something
>you want?"
"If I had a mind to get involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of
wealth, I wouldn't use morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't
use morality as the argument in favour of a pure free market."
VegasJerry
Apr 30, 2012, 6:11:52 PM4/30/12
to
You're stupid.
Jerry
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker
>
> "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
BTSinAustin
Apr 30, 2012, 6:11:51 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 28 2012 3:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
> <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >
> >> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has
a
> >> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
> >>
> >> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
> >
> >h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
>
> Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
> standard right-wing talking point.
I would hardly call Scott Adams right wing. You should read a few of his
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
> <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >
> >> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has
a
> >> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
> >>
> >> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
> >
> >h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
>
> Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
> standard right-wing talking point.
posts. Quite interesting. He does a lot of what he calls thought
experiments. He often puts the following preface to a post
"Warning: This blog is written for a rational audience that likes to have
fun wrestling with unique or controversial points of view. It is written
in a style that can easily be confused as advocacy or opinion. It is not
intended to change anyone's beliefs or actions. If you quote from this
post or link to it, which you are welcome to do, please take
responsibility for whatever happens if you mismatch the audience and the
content."
Designed to head off arguments like you are in now.
He also quite often reminds us "don't take financial advice from
cartoonists"
------
VegasJerry
Apr 30, 2012, 6:09:48 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 29 2012 5:10 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 4/28/12 1:16 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Apr 28 2012 8:56 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >> And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
> >> to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
> >> it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>
> > And you see something wrong in fair share?
>
> As used by Obama and other politicians, yes. Because there is nothing
> "fair" about what they are pushing.
Actually there is; that's the point.
> On 4/28/12 1:16 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Apr 28 2012 8:56 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >> And we've seen this class-envy from Democratic politicians enough times
> >> to know that it's a standard Left-wing talking point. Obama is making
> >> it a focus of his campaign, using the code phrase "fair share."
>
> > And you see something wrong in fair share?
>
> As used by Obama and other politicians, yes. Because there is nothing
> "fair" about what they are pushing.
Jerry 'n Vegas
It is just a code for income
> redistribution and envy of those who earn more, using a phrase that many
> people will like without looking behind the curtain at its implications.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
>
> "On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
David Monaghan
Apr 30, 2012, 7:04:11 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 08:46:03 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 5:38 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >not it doesn't apply to all taxation. it applies to wealth and income
>> >taxation. use taxes don't distort wealth distribution; they increase
>> >costs and incentives for alternatives.
>>
>> It distorts the market prices, and from that the profits traders can make,
>> and from that the wealth of those who income depends on those profits. The
>> effect isn't so direct, but it still occurs.
>
>there's no reason to believe consumption taxes would create either price
>distortions or intra-market arbitrages.
It's difficult to see how it wouldn't have an effect. It depends on how it's
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 5:38 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> >not it doesn't apply to all taxation. it applies to wealth and income
>> >taxation. use taxes don't distort wealth distribution; they increase
>> >costs and incentives for alternatives.
>>
>> It distorts the market prices, and from that the profits traders can make,
>> and from that the wealth of those who income depends on those profits. The
>> effect isn't so direct, but it still occurs.
>
>there's no reason to believe consumption taxes would create either price
>distortions or intra-market arbitrages.
implemented, of course, but at the very least smuggling and black market
activity would increase. A flat tax on all sales would disproportionately
affect the less well off, who spend a much higher percentage of their income
on food, reducing their discretionary spending. It's doubtful the better off
would increase their discretionary spending to exactly match that drop in
all goods, so there's another effect. And all non-flat rate sales taxes
would have an obvious distorting effect on the relative cost of goods and
therefore sales.
>> >if you want to pretend there's no evidence,
>> Whoa there! I invited you to state your evidence and you didn't. If you have
>> evidence, we don't need to deal in opinions.
>i have plenty of evidence. there's endless anecdotal evidence. your mind
>won't be swayed, so why bother?
The problem is, if you don't produce it, it doesn't count. There are some
who would say anecdotal evidence isn't worth a jot, either, but if you have
an endless amount even sub-jots of value add up. Is that the real problem?
You have so much evidence you'd be in danger of bringing down the internet
by flooding the bandwidth if you produced it?
>> >I'm happy to argue in the
>> >theoretical. anyone but an idiot will seek to protect wealth from
>> >inflation and confiscation. the means for doing so consist of investing
>> >in various assets (tangibles: land, metal, etc; paper: cds, stocks,
>> >bonds, etc.). name one investment strategy that doesn't result in job
>> >creation.
>>
>> How many jobs are created by buying Old Masters or land. How many jobs are
>> created by Ponzi schemes? How many jobs are created by buying Government
>> bonds - especially foreign government stock?
>
>you don't think demand for paintings or land creates jobs? how about
>aspiring hirsts trying to relieve the morons of some of those dollars?
>how about brokerages and new online businesses for price discover on
>illiquid assets? how about income on the land with general or ag
>improvements? how about scientific yield work to improve returns? i
>can't counter every madoff, but arguing specifics is nonsense.
could be remotely described as innovative. Any old Tom, Dick, or Harry could
put their money into those things by shared investment funds - and in terms
of artists, it's the small buyers buying from unknown artists that bring on
the new talent. Someone spending a lot of money on a famous artist is simply
transferring money between two rich people.
>how does handing the average poor guy another forty and a snickers help
>anybody?
>
>> >i have no idea what you're talking about in the last sentence. gamble on
>> >a whim? plenty of wealthy people seed ventures, themselves or through vc
>> >firms. try building a company without investment or capital and let me
>> >know how it goes.
>>
>> "Plenty" of people. So not all. And plenty of less wealthy people own share,
>> directly or indirectly, or have money in the bank which is loaned to those
>> same ventures. You're confusing the effect of money per se with the effect
>> of concentrating it in the hands of individual.
>
>of course, not "all". don't be ridiculous.
>
No.
DaveM
mo_ntresor
Apr 30, 2012, 7:23:42 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30 2012 5:04 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >there's no reason to believe consumption taxes would create either price
> >distortions or intra-market arbitrages.
>
> It's difficult to see how it wouldn't have an effect. It depends on how it's
> implemented, of course, but at the very least smuggling and black market
> activity would increase. A flat tax on all sales would disproportionately
> affect the less well off, who spend a much higher percentage of their income
> on food, reducing their discretionary spending. It's doubtful the better off
> would increase their discretionary spending to exactly match that drop in
> all goods, so there's another effect. And all non-flat rate sales taxes
> would have an obvious distorting effect on the relative cost of goods and
> therefore sales.
LOL. you assume things are more "fair" now, but fair's arbitrary UNLESS
> >there's no reason to believe consumption taxes would create either price
> >distortions or intra-market arbitrages.
>
> It's difficult to see how it wouldn't have an effect. It depends on how it's
> implemented, of course, but at the very least smuggling and black market
> activity would increase. A flat tax on all sales would disproportionately
> affect the less well off, who spend a much higher percentage of their income
> on food, reducing their discretionary spending. It's doubtful the better off
> would increase their discretionary spending to exactly match that drop in
> all goods, so there's another effect. And all non-flat rate sales taxes
> would have an obvious distorting effect on the relative cost of goods and
> therefore sales.
everybody's treated identically. consumption taxes meet the standard.
> >i have plenty of evidence. there's endless anecdotal evidence. your mind
> >won't be swayed, so why bother?
>
> I know you wouldn't lie to me, so I'm happy to accept you have the evidence.
> The problem is, if you don't produce it, it doesn't count. There are some
> who would say anecdotal evidence isn't worth a jot, either, but if you have
> an endless amount even sub-jots of value add up. Is that the real problem?
> You have so much evidence you'd be in danger of bringing down the internet
> by flooding the bandwidth if you produced it?
wealthy. if you think that's hard to produce, i'm afraid i can't help you.
> >you don't think demand for paintings or land creates jobs? how about
> >aspiring hirsts trying to relieve the morons of some of those dollars?
> >how about brokerages and new online businesses for price discover on
> >illiquid assets? how about income on the land with general or ag
> >improvements? how about scientific yield work to improve returns? i
> >can't counter every madoff, but arguing specifics is nonsense.
>
> The trouble is, with the exception of some scientific projects, none of that
> could be remotely described as innovative. Any old Tom, Dick, or Harry could
> put their money into those things by shared investment funds - and in terms
> of artists, it's the small buyers buying from unknown artists that bring on
> the new talent. Someone spending a lot of money on a famous artist is simply
> transferring money between two rich people.
asshat at a university or writing for a newspaper or ripping everybody off
in government says it counts.
> >how does handing the average poor guy another forty and a snickers help
> >anybody?
> >of course, not "all". don't be ridiculous.
> >
> >are you american?
>
> No.
______________________________________________________________________
David Monaghan
Apr 30, 2012, 8:01:22 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:23:42 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>LOL. you assume things are more "fair" now, but fair's arbitrary UNLESS
>everybody's treated identically. consumption taxes meet the standard.
You digress. We haven't been comparing current taxation and consumption tax.
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>LOL. you assume things are more "fair" now, but fair's arbitrary UNLESS
>everybody's treated identically. consumption taxes meet the standard.
That's a whole new ball game, and not one I want to get into right now.
>you asked for evidence of job creation via residual / savings of the
>wealthy. if you think that's hard to produce, i'm afraid i can't help you.
asked if you had evidence that concentrating money in the hands of the few
resulted in capital being deployed in more "innovative areas of the economy"
than the same money spread more evenly. You could have just said "no". I
wouldn't have thought any the worse of you if you had, because - as I said
at the time - I didn't have counter-evidence and couldn't be bothered
looking for some if you were just arguing on a point of principle. But
you've continued to claim you have lots of evidence to support your
position, but you're not going to show it to me. That really is very weak,
you know.
>bullshit. the market pays for "innovation".
>> >how does handing the average poor guy another forty and a snickers help
>> >anybody?
the same. I'm not sure where this question popped up from. Is it a real
government program?
DaveM
Pepe Papon
May 1, 2012, 3:10:55 AM5/1/12
to
and your ilk summarily dismiss it as being an expression of envy.
Pepe Papon
May 1, 2012, 3:12:53 AM5/1/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:11:51 -0700, "BTSinAustin"
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 3:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
>> <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has
>a
>> >> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>> >>
>> >> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
>> >
>> >h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
>>
>> Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
>> standard right-wing talking point.
>
>I would hardly call Scott Adams right wing. You should read a few of his
>posts. Quite interesting. He does a lot of what he calls thought
>experiments. He often puts the following preface to a post
I'm not calling Scott Adams right wing. I'm pointing out that the
<a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Apr 28 2012 3:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:56 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
>> <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Apr 27 2012 1:02 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> >
>> >> >I know, I know: You still hate our hypothetical rich turd because he has
>a
>> >> >lot of toys, and lots of control over how his money is used.
>> >>
>> >> Fail. I don't know anyone who hates the rich.
>> >
>> >h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e, genius.
>>
>> Bullshit. We've seen this strawman enough times to know that it's a
>> standard right-wing talking point.
>
>I would hardly call Scott Adams right wing. You should read a few of his
>posts. Quite interesting. He does a lot of what he calls thought
>experiments. He often puts the following preface to a post
"hate the rich" meme is a standard right-wing straw man.
mo_ntresor
May 1, 2012, 11:23:00 AM5/1/12
to
bullshit, there are plenty of your persuasion on the group to keep you
entertained.
mo_ntresor
----
BTSinAustin
May 1, 2012, 11:33:41 AM5/1/12
to
_____________________________________________________________________
David Monaghan
May 1, 2012, 2:20:27 PM5/1/12
to
On Tue, 01 May 2012 08:23:00 -0700, "mo_ntresor"
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>i'm not digressing or confused; i'm bored.
I'm taking this to mean you feel this discussion has run its course. At
<amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote:
>i'm not digressing or confused; i'm bored.
least it finishes with us in agreement about that.
DaveM
da pickle
May 2, 2012, 8:33:31 AM5/2/12
to
exceptions, "big government" is not a very good way to manage the
economy. I am not sure where you stand ... or even if your are standing
... or sitting ... or laying down ... confusing.
Truthseeker
May 2, 2012, 11:55:38 AM5/2/12
to
Truthseeker
May 2, 2012, 12:00:08 PM5/2/12
to
of the rich is exploited for political purposes? I never suggested that
the only reason for progressive taxation is envy. That envy of the rich
is exploited for political purposes is undeniable to all except extreme
partisans, it's right out there for all to see.
Truthseeker
May 2, 2012, 12:01:52 PM5/2/12
to
"straw men" points that you can't refute.
David Monaghan
May 2, 2012, 7:08:37 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 09:55:38 -0600, Truthseeker <truth...@nospam.us>
it might lose, and vice versa. If the net effect of a flatter distribution
is a benefit to society, it should be pursued, otherwise not.
The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
DaveM
wrote:
>On 4/30/12 3:53 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:01:00 -0600, Truthseeker<truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>
>>> On 4/29/12 6:20 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>>> Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited:
>
>>> "Oh, so you are just opportunistic, using government force to
>>> redistribute income not because it's right but because it's something
>>> you want?"
>
>> Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited out, too:
>>
>> "If I had a mind to get involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of
>> wealth, I wouldn't use morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't
>> use morality as the argument in favour of a pure free market."
>
>Why not? Do you think morality is not germane to such issues?
No I don't. What's germane is what benefits society might gain, versus what
>On 4/30/12 3:53 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 10:01:00 -0600, Truthseeker<truth...@nospam.us>
>> wrote:
>
>>> On 4/29/12 6:20 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>>> Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited:
>
>>> "Oh, so you are just opportunistic, using government force to
>>> redistribute income not because it's right but because it's something
>>> you want?"
>
>> Now I'll repeat the paragraph of mine above that you edited out, too:
>>
>> "If I had a mind to get involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of
>> wealth, I wouldn't use morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't
>> use morality as the argument in favour of a pure free market."
>
>Why not? Do you think morality is not germane to such issues?
it might lose, and vice versa. If the net effect of a flatter distribution
is a benefit to society, it should be pursued, otherwise not.
The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
DaveM
David Monaghan
May 2, 2012, 7:14:49 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 07:33:31 -0500, da pickle <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com>
wrote:
That's an astute observation. Mo just assumed.
DaveM
wrote:
DaveM
TruthSeeker
May 2, 2012, 7:52:44 PM5/2/12
to
position on income redistribution (as it involves taking away people's
property without their consent). It is, though, a logically consistent
one. Thank you for clarifying.
--
TruthSeeker
fffurken
May 2, 2012, 8:51:38 PM5/2/12
to
On May 3, 12:08 am, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "If I had a mind to get involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of
> >> wealth, I wouldn't use morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't
> >> use morality as the argument in favour of a pure free market."
>
> >Why not? Do you think morality is not germane to such issues?
>
> No I don't. What's germane is what benefits society might gain, versus what
> it might lose, and vice versa. If the net effect of a flatter distribution
> is a benefit to society, it should be pursued, otherwise not.
>
> The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
> the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
> than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
LOL. Excellent post Dave.
> >> "If I had a mind to get involved in arguing for a flatter distribution of
> >> wealth, I wouldn't use morality as the justification, just as I wouldn't
> >> use morality as the argument in favour of a pure free market."
>
> >Why not? Do you think morality is not germane to such issues?
>
> No I don't. What's germane is what benefits society might gain, versus what
> it might lose, and vice versa. If the net effect of a flatter distribution
> is a benefit to society, it should be pursued, otherwise not.
>
> The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
> the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
> than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
I might start calling Truthseeker (chortle), Truthseeker "madder than
a box of frogs" (chortle) from now on.
Pepe Papon
May 2, 2012, 9:04:08 PM5/2/12
to
On Wed, 02 May 2012 10:01:52 -0600, Truthseeker
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 5/1/12 1:12 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:11:51 -0700, "BTSinAustin"
>> <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm not calling Scott Adams right wing. I'm pointing out that the
>> "hate the rich" meme is a standard right-wing straw man.
>
>First of all, "envy" is not the same as "hate." But you do like to call
>"straw men" points that you can't refute.
Shut up, you idiot. But don't forget to declare victory, first.
<truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 5/1/12 1:12 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 15:11:51 -0700, "BTSinAustin"
>> <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I'm not calling Scott Adams right wing. I'm pointing out that the
>> "hate the rich" meme is a standard right-wing straw man.
>
>First of all, "envy" is not the same as "hate." But you do like to call
>"straw men" points that you can't refute.
mo_ntresor
May 2, 2012, 10:33:45 PM5/2/12
to
On May 2 2012 5:08 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >Why not? Do you think morality is not germane to such issues?
>
> No I don't. What's germane is what benefits society might gain, versus what
> it might lose, and vice versa. If the net effect of a flatter distribution
> is a benefit to society, it should be pursued, otherwise not.
>
> The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
> the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
> than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
social "benefits", like "fairness", are arbitrary, and they almost always
> >Why not? Do you think morality is not germane to such issues?
>
> No I don't. What's germane is what benefits society might gain, versus what
> it might lose, and vice versa. If the net effect of a flatter distribution
> is a benefit to society, it should be pursued, otherwise not.
>
> The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
> the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
> than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
favor the politicians who decide.
mo_ntresor
------�
David Monaghan
May 3, 2012, 2:50:36 AM5/3/12
to
"societal" interchangeably, although some consider them so. We may be in
danger of talking at cross purposes again, but the societal benefits I have
in mind would be measurable, tangible, and well established rather than
nebulous concepts like "well being", which is what I associate with
"social".
DaveM
mo_ntresor
May 3, 2012, 11:17:58 AM5/3/12
to
On May 3 2012 12:50 AM, David Monaghan wrote:
> >social "benefits", like "fairness", are arbitrary, and they almost always
> >favor the politicians who decide.
>
> We're back on semantics again, because I wouldn't use "social" and
> "societal" interchangeably, although some consider them so. We may be in
> danger of talking at cross purposes again, but the societal benefits I have
> in mind would be measurable, tangible, and well established rather than
> nebulous concepts like "well being", which is what I associate with
> "social".
measuring societal benefits and cause is nearly impossible. maybe you
> >social "benefits", like "fairness", are arbitrary, and they almost always
> >favor the politicians who decide.
>
> We're back on semantics again, because I wouldn't use "social" and
> "societal" interchangeably, although some consider them so. We may be in
> danger of talking at cross purposes again, but the societal benefits I have
> in mind would be measurable, tangible, and well established rather than
> nebulous concepts like "well being", which is what I associate with
> "social".
have some specifics ...
mo_ntresor
---
Truthseeker
May 3, 2012, 12:19:28 PM5/3/12
to
Truthseeker
May 3, 2012, 12:19:34 PM5/3/12
to
David Monaghan
May 3, 2012, 2:26:34 PM5/3/12
to
standards would be impossible, but just showing a consistent association
would still be a magnitude or two better evidence than most policies are
based on.
Specifics? Well, average adult height, life expectancy and murder rates
would be a good starting point.
DaveM
fffurken
May 3, 2012, 5:13:02 PM5/3/12
to
On May 3, 5:19 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >> The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
> >> the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
> >> than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
>
> > LOL. Excellent post Dave.
>
> > I might start calling Truthseeker (chortle), Truthseeker "madder than
> > a box of frogs" (chortle) from now on.
>
> You must be so disappointed that I agreed with Dave about the market.
I don't see how you had a choice!
> >> The market doesn't work on morality either; it's just a mechanism to find
> >> the right price, and if you'd argue for it on the basis of morality rather
> >> than effectiveness, you're madder than a box of frogs.
>
> > LOL. Excellent post Dave.
>
> > I might start calling Truthseeker (chortle), Truthseeker "madder than
> > a box of frogs" (chortle) from now on.
>
> You must be so disappointed that I agreed with Dave about the market.
The rest of the post was your usual assinine self, so you didn't
exactly disappoint.
TruthSeeker
May 5, 2012, 1:14:57 PM5/5/12
to
On 5/3/12 3:13 PM, fffurken wrote:
> On May 3, 5:19 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> You must be so disappointed that I agreed with Dave about the market.
> I don't see how you had a choice!
Are you admitting that you can't see how anyone can hold an opinion that
> On May 3, 5:19 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>> You must be so disappointed that I agreed with Dave about the market.
> I don't see how you had a choice!
doesn't match your own?
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
May 6, 2012, 2:15:00 AM5/6/12
to
On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:14:57 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 5/3/12 3:13 PM, fffurken wrote:
>> On May 3, 5:19 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> You must be so disappointed that I agreed with Dave about the market.
>
>> I don't see how you had a choice!
>
>Are you admitting that you can't see how anyone can hold an opinion that
>doesn't match your own?
Don't be silly. He's saying that Dave has a very strong argument that
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>On 5/3/12 3:13 PM, fffurken wrote:
>> On May 3, 5:19 pm, Truthseeker <truthsee...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> You must be so disappointed that I agreed with Dave about the market.
>
>> I don't see how you had a choice!
>
>Are you admitting that you can't see how anyone can hold an opinion that
>doesn't match your own?
you would have a very hard time trying to argue against.
fffurken
May 6, 2012, 6:29:35 AM5/6/12
to
On May 5, 6:14 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> Are you admitting that you can't see how anyone can hold an opinion that
> doesn't match your own?
In which circumstance? If someone tells me 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4, I'm
> Are you admitting that you can't see how anyone can hold an opinion that
> doesn't match your own?
going to go right ahead and tell them they're an idiot, idiot.
TruthSeeker
May 6, 2012, 2:28:16 PM5/6/12
to
the lock he claimed, though, he fell victim to the practice of labeling
those who don't share his opinion idiots. There are rational arguments
some people make for morality being one basis for choosing mostly-free
markets over planned economies. I'm not saying you would agree with
them or find them persuasive, that's not the point. I see no reason for
contending something where we are not in disagreement on the basic
issue. I don't argue just for the sake of arguing (yeah, I know, what a
concept here).
Fffurken, of course, couldn't resist taking the cheap shot, even one
that missed the mark so widely.
fffurken
May 6, 2012, 2:40:42 PM5/6/12
to
On May 6, 7:28 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> Fffurken, of course, couldn't resist taking the cheap shot, even one
> that missed the mark so widely.
What cheap shot?
> Fffurken, of course, couldn't resist taking the cheap shot, even one
> that missed the mark so widely.
Seriously, shut up idiot!
David Monaghan
May 6, 2012, 7:07:25 PM5/6/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 12:28:16 -0600, TruthSeeker <Truth...@nospam.us>
wrote:
>Dave had a strong argument, and one that I agree with. He did not have
>the lock he claimed, though, he fell victim to the practice of labeling
>those who don't share his opinion idiots.
I think you may have me confused with someone else. I challenged mo_ntresor
over his assertion that money concentrated in an individual's hands creates
more jobs than the same money dispersed. He might have been right; he nay be
right, but it didn't sound believable to me. I also didn't think it was
likely there was solid evidence one way or another on this, but if there had
been, I'd have been won over: I'm a sucker for evidence.
I have been convinced that a flatter spread of wealth is of benefit to
society, but I don't know how we get there and I have no opinion on the
policies being pursued in the US, because (1) I have no idea what they are,
and (2) because I don't care (but if you find something that works, I'm all
ears).
And I wasn't intending to be further involved in this discussion, but now
I've been drawn back in: I don't believe that any form of taxation is any
more or less consented than any other. Don't forget the formation of the US
started with a revolt about a goods tax, not income tax...
DaveM
wrote:
>Dave had a strong argument, and one that I agree with. He did not have
>the lock he claimed, though, he fell victim to the practice of labeling
>those who don't share his opinion idiots.
over his assertion that money concentrated in an individual's hands creates
more jobs than the same money dispersed. He might have been right; he nay be
right, but it didn't sound believable to me. I also didn't think it was
likely there was solid evidence one way or another on this, but if there had
been, I'd have been won over: I'm a sucker for evidence.
I have been convinced that a flatter spread of wealth is of benefit to
society, but I don't know how we get there and I have no opinion on the
policies being pursued in the US, because (1) I have no idea what they are,
and (2) because I don't care (but if you find something that works, I'm all
ears).
And I wasn't intending to be further involved in this discussion, but now
I've been drawn back in: I don't believe that any form of taxation is any
more or less consented than any other. Don't forget the formation of the US
started with a revolt about a goods tax, not income tax...
DaveM
Pepe Papon
May 7, 2012, 2:26:16 AM5/7/12
to
>Dave had a strong argument, and one that I agree with. He did not have
>the lock he claimed, though, he fell victim to the practice of labeling
>those who don't share his opinion idiots.
No, he didn't.
>the lock he claimed, though, he fell victim to the practice of labeling
>those who don't share his opinion idiots.
> There are rational arguments
>some people make for morality being one basis for choosing mostly-free
>markets over planned economies. I'm not saying you would agree with
>them or find them persuasive, that's not the point.
infinitum. The economic argument, OTOH, is solid. That's why Dave
is correct in pointing out that only a fool would argue based on
morality.
Pepe Papon
May 7, 2012, 2:29:21 AM5/7/12
to
On Mon, 07 May 2012 00:07:25 +0100, David Monaghan
<monagha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>And I wasn't intending to be further involved in this discussion, but now
>I've been drawn back in: I don't believe that any form of taxation is any
>more or less consented than any other. Don't forget the formation of the US
>started with a revolt about a goods tax, not income tax...
Not that I disagree with the substance of your argument, but allow me
<monagha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>And I wasn't intending to be further involved in this discussion, but now
>I've been drawn back in: I don't believe that any form of taxation is any
>more or less consented than any other. Don't forget the formation of the US
>started with a revolt about a goods tax, not income tax...
to point out that the type of tax wasn't the issue in the revolution
as much as the process of its implementation.
0 new messages