Moderator: Edi
Why do you think Biden is a crooked lawyer and Obama is an empty suit?kinnison wrote:Incidentally, in the last election, from the point of view of an outsider, there was a really hard choice. On one side an empty suit and a crooked lawyer; on the other side a geriatric zealot and an anti-abortionist, creationist theocrat. Which pair was worse is a difficult question.
Are you an idiot?Where is Jack Ryan when you need him?
I'm pretty sure that's a joke/parody, as I haven't been able to find any real source for the article. What was that law of the internet which says it's impossible to parody conservative ideals because they're indistinguishable from the actual ones?Crossroads Inc. wrote:Can I get a link and full article for that? it just seems so surreal.Patrick Degan wrote:[img]<snip>[/img]
Beck Hails Latest Teabagging Rally as "Success"
Surprise book-roast event added to festivities
TV comic Glenn Beck expressed satisfaction at the success of the special teabagging protest rally against taxation for the wealthy held over the weekend and was particularly surprised and delighted at the unexpected but wholly spontaneous book-roast staged by the rally's sponsors. "Clearly, morality is once more on the march in America," said Beck as he took part in tossing a few tomes into the flames, then asked for marshmallows as "evil liberal ideas" went up in smoke.
PRFYNAFBTFCP
He's a standard-issue market libertarian. They all say that, and he knows how to parrot. Wait till he goes on to say "The only politician worth listening to at all is Ron Paul".Thanas wrote:Why do you think Biden is a crooked lawyer and Obama is an empty suit?kinnison wrote:Incidentally, in the last election, from the point of view of an outsider, there was a really hard choice. On one side an empty suit and a crooked lawyer; on the other side a geriatric zealot and an anti-abortionist, creationist theocrat. Which pair was worse is a difficult question.
The US has one of the lower tax rates in the first world. You do realize that?Taxation without representation is bad. Representation without taxation is worse; that way, you can vote in any sort of damnfool nonsense, costing billions and sucking the life out of the productive part of the economy, and suffer not at all yourself.
I know, the taxes are just eating Bill Gates alive, right? Oh, wait- he is so rich he doesn't even notice them! Most business owners DON'T get rich enough to be impact by the higher income brackets- most don't make enough money or they fail.Newsflash guys! People who take enormous risks (as in the risk, at startup, of losing everything they own) to create a new business - and create jobs for lots of others in the process - expect, if they succeed, to be able to keep the fruits of their labour.
Unless you are Swedish or the US circa 1950. As for leaving the country, their assests are still in the US and are citizens.Incidentally, there is a great deal of evidence that when a country goes above a certain top tax rate (probably around 60%) the total tax rate in that bracket goes down. Why? Because they hire expensive accountants to minimise their tax, or just leave the country.
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.Thanas wrote:^True, but I have not yet lost hope that someday, someone of those guys might come up with an explanation for his/her opinion about politicians that does not consist of "because sombody told me so and I trust them".
Wow, what a retard. You ever had a job, son? Check your paycheck; no matter how little you're paying, you're shelling out on payroll tax.Yes, the people who don't pay any tax (or a minimal amount) want to have lots of social programmes paid for by someone else.
He might be talking about welfare recipients, who pay no tax and still have representation in government. I don't know what kind of solution he's proposing though: does he propose increased taxes on people who have nothing to pay them with? Increased taxes on minimum-wage employees who would end up being better off on welfare as a result? Sharply reduced taxes for those who can afford to pay them, and some sort of magical technique for supporting the government budget? Neutering of the government into a bullshit anarcho-libertarian paradise? I'd bet he's promoting the last option.SirNitram wrote:Wow, what a retard. You ever had a job, son? Check your paycheck; no matter how little you're paying, you're shelling out on payroll tax.Yes, the people who don't pay any tax (or a minimal amount) want to have lots of social programmes paid for by someone else.
Newsflash. We give those people massive tax breaks and subsidized loans. Yeah, we totally rob them blind and don't let them keep a single cent of their earnings. But hey, you know, if a company IPO's $100 million in shares and the founder wants to cash in his $10 million, it's criminal to hit him for capital gains taxes because that's "stealing the fruits of his labour".kinnison wrote:Newsflash guys! People who take enormous risks (as in the risk, at startup, of losing everything they own) to create a new business - and create jobs for lots of others in the process - expect, if they succeed, to be able to keep the fruits of their labour. Don't let them do that, and they will just leave - and pay no tax at all.
OK, what part of "exponential" do you not understand? Wealth increases exponentially relative to work once you reach a certain point. Why should taxes be kept linear? This is leaving aside the fact that the wealthy actually have far more ways to protect their income from taxes, particularly capital-gains where the truly rich make almost all of their money.kinnison wrote:Darth, they do. If someone on $1,000,000 per year pays tax at the same rate as someone on $50,000 then he pays TWENTY TIMES as much tax, and costs the State no more - in fact he probably costs it less. How's that for an "increasing tax burden"?
And morons think one must choose instead of blending both approaches.Repeat; what's more important - getting more money for whatever purpose or punishing those who dare to take risks and actually win the gamble? Socialists, including the current gang running the Democrat Party, appear to think the latter.
Nothing in your principle indicates or requires these exclusionary conditions; you are simply gaming your idea to evade the obvious criticism.The exception for bankers is quite simple, really. Apart from the basic function of lending money for business investment, they make money by shuffling paper and contribute nothing at all. And have you noticed the minor damage they have done to Western economies lately?
Ooooh, I've never seen that paragraph repeated almost verbatim by a market libertarian before. You're sooo original!And by the way, all your assumptions about my favoured solution are incorrect. The "bread and circuses" problem is fundamental to a universal democracy. To quote de Tocqueville: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of governement. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." America's Bicentennial was thirty years ago.
Do you really think quote-mining is a valid form of logical argument?Another quote, from the little known politician Abraham Lincoln: "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
That quote isn't actually Lincoln, rather it is from a 19th century minister named William J. H. Boetcker.kinnison wrote: Another quote, from the little known politician Abraham Lincoln: "You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
The current American (and UK) government is doing all the above. How long have we got?
My idea of a solution, not original with me, is simply qualification requirements for the vote. I favour Heinlein's solution, but a much simpler one would be that if you didn't pay net income tax last year you don't get to vote. Note that I said "net tax"; which neatly sorts out another problem. After all, the net income tax paid by any employee of any government is negative.
That would only be true if you weren't a libertarian or his critique of them is wrong. Both conditions are met so it isn't poisoning the well.That particular quotation encapsulates quite a lot of things I might have said in my own words. By the way, you are using a technique that I believe is called "poisoning the well".
We still do. Remember the demonization of people on welfare?There used to be a distinction made between deserving and undeserving poor. The distinction ought to come back into fashion.
That isn't his point. Having money opens up more options to make even more money. Just by interest you could make enough to live on with enough money. If I had a billion dollars with 1% interest I'd make a million a year before taxes, without lifting a finger!Yes, the wealthy have many more ways to avoid tax.
While they don't do productive work, I'd hardly call them parasites. They are needed for a functioning society. After a certain level they clog up the system, but some are always needed until Sidewiders fears are unleashed upon the world(another species of parasite along with investment bankers and lawyers)
He lives in Canada. Right-wingers there do not favor the invasion of Iraq. Right wing does not always refer to militism in fact.And that statement rather torpedoes your theory that I am a right-wing nutcase, doesn't it?
THIS is why he considers you nutty right wing. How do you think we are able to communicate? You think the net came from the heavens?Governments waste money. That's what they do.
That's hilarious. You're ignoring that he also keeps twenty times more. IOW, he can afford to pay twenty times more than the other guy, because his standard of living is high enough that he can take a hit and not even feel it.kinnison wrote:Darth, they do. If someone on $1,000,000 per year pays tax at the same rate as someone on $50,000 then he pays TWENTY TIMES as much tax, and costs the State no more - in fact he probably costs it less. How's that for an "increasing tax burden"? Repeat; what's more important - getting more money for whatever purpose or punishing those who dare to take risks and actually win the gamble? Socialists, including the current gang running the Democrat Party, appear to think the latter.
I suppose nobody was able to take risks and "win the gamble" with the "punishment" of higher top-level taxation during the 40s, 50s, and 60s than is known now. No, there were no millionaires or billion— oh wait, Howard Huges, William Randolph Hearst, J. Paul Getty... Shall I go on? Clearly, your argument is defective since upper-level taxation in the neighbourhood of 65% and higher did no such thing during the time of continuous upward economic growth and the rise of a broad and prosperous middle class.kinnison wrote:Repeat; what's more important - getting more money for whatever purpose or punishing those who dare to take risks and actually win the gamble? Socialists, including the current gang running the Democrat Party, appear to think the latter.
You mean the way the plutocratic class have been doing for much of the last 25 years with the help of their Republican allies.To quote de Tocqueville: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of governement. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
You don't even realize that he fails to make an argument in that quote, do you? All he does is state his conclusions: that is not an argument, and your use of his quote is not an argument either, even by proxy. It's an Appeal to Authority fallacy.kinnison wrote:"Do you really think quote-mining is a valid form of logical argument?"
No. But sometimes it economises on effort, especially as the author of that was a much better writer than I will ever be. That particular quotation encapsulates quite a lot of things I might have said in my own words.
By the way, you are using a technique that I believe is called "poisoning the well". How many of the statements in the Lincoln quotation do you disagree with?
You think it's well-poisoning to dismiss your Appeal to Authority fallacy? That's a good one. Let's add basic logic fallacies to the list of things you obviously don't understand at all.And now we can add the "Good Old Days" fallacy to your list of intellectual atrocities ...There used to be a distinction made between deserving and undeserving poor. The distinction ought to come back into fashion.
So your solution to rich people looting the country and taking their money overseas is to ... reduce their tax rate? How will that keep their money in the country? They will still take their money overseas. Or will you declare that a flat-tax would enormously simplify the tax code and magically make them want to keep their money in the country, even though they would hide their money anyway and tax form complexity is all in the deductions and credits rather than the sliding-scale rate calculation?Yes, the wealthy have many more ways to avoid tax. Many of them involve either moving overseas themselves, moving their money overseas, or paying accountants (another species of parasite along with investment bankers and lawyers) to arrange their affairs appropriately. This state of affairs is destructive and wasteful in many ways: It means money that would have stayed in the host country going overseas. It means talented, intelligent individuals being employed in an essentially useless activity. And it actually increases the tax burden for everyone; after all, a complex tax system means huge numbers of government bureaucrats to oversee it and these people have to be paid - out of taxes. How many chair-warmers could be removed from the public payroll if the tax system was greatly simplified? Note that this could be accomplished by natural wastage.
No, it doesn't. I said you were obviously a market libertarian nutjob, and you clearly are.Incidentally, there are many other ways that governments waste money. Blowing lots of large holes in Iraq is one of them. And that statement rather torpedoes your theory that I am a right-wing nutcase, doesn't it?
The fact that an institution is run incompetently does not mean the whole concept of that institution is wrong. Private corporations make horrendous mistakes too, as this economic quagmire demonstrates with crystal clarity; do you conclude that corporations inherently waste money and should be reduced and/or eliminated?Another way of wasting money - and actually working in a directly opposite way to that intended - is the shambles that is the TSA; notably, their PC refusal to allow profiling costs much delay (and therefore expense) to the travelling public while actually undermining the job they are supposed to be doing.
People waste money. That's what they do. Therefore, their ability to do that should be limited.Governments waste money. That's what they do. Therefore, their ability to do that should be limited. And, by the way, from the rather little I know about Ron Paul I think he is a lunatic. Not as bad as Huckabee, but close.
Except that 20% of $1000000 is worth less the owner than 20% of $50000. It's called "diminishing marginal utility", and it's something every basic economics student learns. That's why rich people can gamble - they don't value their money nearly as much as middle-class or poor people.kinnison wrote:Darth, they do. If someone on $1,000,000 per year pays tax at the same rate as someone on $50,000 then he pays TWENTY TIMES as much tax, and costs the State no more - in fact he probably costs it less. How's that for an "increasing tax burden"?
Or, another way to think about it is,Surlethe wrote:Except that 20% of $1000000 is worth less the owner than 20% of $50000. It's called "diminishing marginal utility", and it's something every basic economics student learns. That's why rich people can gamble - they don't value their money nearly as much as middle-class or poor people.kinnison wrote:Darth, they do. If someone on $1,000,000 per year pays tax at the same rate as someone on $50,000 then he pays TWENTY TIMES as much tax, and costs the State no more - in fact he probably costs it less. How's that for an "increasing tax burden"?
Whether they be the conclusions of a philosophical process or something more akin to a religious belief is totally irrelevant to the point I made.kinnison wrote:Darth, about the quote again: None of those statements were conclusions but a statement of his beliefs.
Arguments which YOU have not provided. What part of this do you not understand?Take an example. "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich." That is a statement of position, and would require arguments to back it up.
If you're going to make claims like this, you should at least pretend to back them up.One such argument might be that, as the poor vastly outnumber the rich (and I don't mean comfortably well-off, I mean RICH) there is simply not enough money available from soaking the rich to make any significant difference to the poor. And in any case, it won't go to them anyway - it will disappear into the coffers of government.
It doesn't matter. The point is the outcome. Your bizarre attempt to turn this into some kind of analysis of hidden psychological motivations is childish in the extreme: you're looking for "good guys" and "bad guys" and trying to turn a matter of public and economic policy into a matter of personalities and motives.You have still not answered the question. Is the idea of enormously high tax rates at the high end of the income scale to pull in more money, or to punish the rich for being rich?
You will, of course, provide sources for all of this? Including enough information to determine how other socio-economic variables were accounted for in this incredibly simplistic analysis?There is actually an example of the effect of extremely high tax rates. In the 70s in the UK, there was an 83% top tax rate and a 15% surchage for "unearned income" i.e. income from investments. Much of the income of someone at that end of the scale is indeed investment income, so many of the top earners were paying 90% or more tax. Did that pull in lots of money? No. They moved abroad. (Note that UK citizens abroad don't pay UK tax.) End result? A confiscatory tax rate reduced the tax take from those people. And when the tax system regained its sanity, many of them moved back to Britain - proving that moving abroad was entirely due to having virtually all their income taken off them if they didn't.
Ah, so based on this simplistic analysis for which you provide no sources and make no attempt to explain how all other socio-economic variables were determined to be extraneous or corrected for, you conclude that your original broad-ranging generalization must be true. How convenient.The real point is that the more tax is imposed, the more effort (and accountancy fees) those affected by it will expend to avoid it. After all, accountants cost money if nothing else, so if the tax isn't hurting you, the money will not be spent.
I'm sure that kind of derisive rhetoric plays really well at the libertarian moron conventions you apparently get all of your talking points from. It helps remind you who the good guys and bad guys are, right?You want to support urban drug addicts, or invest in wind farms, or look after abandoned pets? Fine. Use your money to do it, not mine.
