Rachel Maddow, Republicans and Tea Bags (NSFW)

[The Spartan]

At the risk of exacerbating the dogpile, kinnison let me ask you a question.

Suppose there is a class of people who, though making up a small minority of a population, control 90% of the wealth in a given economy. Now, are you going to tell me that it's not fair that they should contribute 90% of the taxes because it punishes their success?

[kinnison]

Spartan - No, I'm not. Now you tell me; if the tax is flat rate, and said people have 90% of the income, is it not true that they will pay 90% of the tax? Escalating tax rates mean that those who earn more pay a disproportionate proportion of their income - this behaviour of the tax system is as designed, and it is designed that way because of envy; no more and no less.

What I don't think is fair is that the proportion of the population that pay no tax at all (and usually make no other contribution either) nevertheless get to decide how other people's tax - and let's not forget that tax is money extorted on threat of imprisonment - is spent.

No representation without taxation!

[Crossroads Inc.]

No representation without taxation!

What the hell does that even MEAN?

[starfury]

What I don't think is fair is that the proportion of the population that pay no tax at all (and usually make no other contribution either) nevertheless get to decide how other people's tax - and let's not forget that tax is money extorted on threat of imprisonment - is spent.

Where it paradoxily makes more like for them to leech off your precious taxes, since each dollar taken from them affects them far more then the rich, who can swallow this and barely notice in many cases, As for exhortion by goverment, that is the price for Civilization as opposed to goverment allowing your neighbor to use their money to build up weapons and use them take everything you have, aka somaila, a wonderful example of your taxfree paradise, aka Might makes right.

[Simplicius]

Spartan - No, I'm not. Now you tell me; if the tax is flat rate, and said people have 90% of the income, is it not true that they will pay 90% of the tax? Escalating tax rates mean that those who earn more pay a disproportionate proportion of their income - this behaviour of the tax system is as designed, and it is designed that way because of envy; no more and no less.

You are an idiot, and here is why. If I make $30,000 a year and pay (let's say) 5% in taxes, I take home $28,500. This is enough money to live on, but I will have to live frugally and save carefully to make sure I have a cushion for emergencies. If I make $500,000 a year and pay 25% in taxes, I take home $375,000. This is more than enough money to live comfortably; in other words I do not suffer at all for paying a higher rate.

Here is the kicker: at a 500% taxation rate my net income is thirteen times - 1,300% - higher than it would be at $30,000/year and 5% tax. Progressive taxes do not harm the rich and it is dishonest to argue otherwise.

Also, provide evidence that "envy" is the basis for progressive taxation.

What I don't think is fair is that the proportion of the population that pay no tax at all (and usually make no other contribution either) nevertheless get to decide how other people's tax - and let's not forget that tax is money extorted on threat of imprisonment - is spent.

No representation without taxation!

And who will vote in the interests of the underclass, if they cannot do so themselves?

"Extorted on the threat of imprisonment" - oh, not this old chestnut again.

EDIT: That double period was bothering me.

[aerius]

No representation without taxation!

Fine. We'll hit everyone with a token 1 cent tax. Now everyone can vote.

[Knife]

What I don't think is fair is that the proportion of the population that pay no tax at all (and usually make no other contribution either) nevertheless get to decide how other people's tax - and let's not forget that tax is money extorted on threat of imprisonment - is spent.

Who are these mythical people who pay no taxes? Oh, you mean income taxes, don't you. Not sales tax or any of it's little subclasses like gas tax or passed on taxes from companies in our bills as 'fees'.

[The Spartan]

Spartan - No, I'm not. Now you tell me; if the tax is flat rate, and said people have 90% of the income, is it not true that they will pay 90% of the tax? Escalating tax rates mean that those who earn more pay a disproportionate proportion of their income - this behaviour of the tax system is as designed, and it is designed that way because of envy; no more and no less.

Though I'll admit that my question was very poorly worded.

Here's the kicker: assuming you're an American, that's the society you're living in right now. The richest people get away with such miniscule taxes that the tax burden is being born by the middle class. Who do not control 90% of the wealth. That's controled by the folks who have all those tax breaks and can weasel their way out of them because of capital gains and what not. And, in no small part because of this, we face horrible short falls on our budget. And yet morons like you seem to think the solution is to lower taxes on the rich! Do you know what happens then? University fees go up, taxes are raised on children's college funds, the people least able to bear the burden are the ones it's handed to!

What I don't think is fair is that the proportion of the population that pay no tax at all (and usually make no other contribution either) nevertheless get to decide how other people's tax - and let's not forget that tax is money extorted on threat of imprisonment - is spent.

You know I hear this horseshit all the time. Is this really such a widespread problem that we need to bemoan this and whine that rich people are getting taxed at a higher rate? Is there any evidence whatsoever that this is more than a few isolated people who are so lazy that they don't work and I'd go out on a limb to say don't bother to vote? And what of the disabled or elderly who can't work? Does there voice mean nothing?

Or me? I'm getting laid off at the end of next week. If an public vote were to be cast during the time frame that I'm unemployed do you suggest that I shouldn't be allowed to vote in said referendum? Do you begrudge me the unemployment that I recieve while looking for work?

No representation without taxation!

Funny, I've been back and forth through the current version of the Constitution, not to mention the older versions, and nowhere does it state that one is required to pay money in any fashion in order to vote. In fact, it is a right explicitly given to any citizen of the United States who is 18 or older by said document's 26th Amendment, it being the supreme law of the land. There's even case law regarding it, specifically the poll taxes of the Jim Crow era.

[Count Chocula]

Also, provide evidence that "envy" is the basis for progressive taxation.

I won't contend that "envy" is the basis for progressive taxation, but it IS a position of a political system of thought that's diametrically opposed to the US Constitution, as well as the discussion in the Federalist Papers that framed the writing of the Constitution.

From Chapter 2 of The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels, subsequent to the assumption of political power by the proletariat and disenfranchising of the "bourgeoisie," we get to the "ten planks" of Communism.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

In other words, an income tax that takes more from one as one accrues more money is the #2 characteristic of a Communist society. The American Progressive movement was heavily influenced by Communism's ideals, and the US income tax on wages was instituted under progressive President Wilson's administration. A progressive income tax, hell a tax on wages at all, was no part of the Constitution until the 16th Amendment was passed in 1912 after being proposed by Taft and seconded by Congress. My personal view is that the 16th Amendment's passage was a result of Communist thought on the (progressive) Democrat party, and also an opportunity for Congressmen to get their hands on tax money that could be doled out to their favorite groups, without having to conform to equal apportionment or Census based ratios.

[Patrick Degan]

The concept of progressive taxation predates Marx —Adam Smith advocated it in his The Wealth Of Nations (1776) and it was included as part of the French Declaration Of The Rights Of Man (1789). Furthermore, your charge that the passage of the 16th amendment resulted from Marxist influence is ludicrous, especially as there had already been one direct income tax in the nation's history —the one passed by Congress and signed into law by Abraham Lincoln to finance the Union war effort against the Confederacy.

[Count Chocula]

The 1861 and 1862 Revenue Acts were war taxes, and the "graduation" of the 1862 act encompassed the stunning range of 3% - 5% and was terminated in 1866. There were a couple of subsequent attempts, which were overturned in court until the passage of the 16th Amendment.

[Patrick Degan]

The 1861 and 1862 Revenue Acts were war taxes, and the "graduation" of the 1862 act encompassed the stunning range of 3% - 5% and was terminated in 1866. There were a couple of subsequent attempts, which were overturned in court until the passage of the 16th Amendment.

Which defeats the point that your idiotic argument about the origins of both progressive taxation and direct income tax resulted from Marxist influcence is bullshit... how, exactly?

[Akhlut]

Spartan - No, I'm not. Now you tell me; if the tax is flat rate, and said people have 90% of the income, is it not true that they will pay 90% of the tax? Escalating tax rates mean that those who earn more pay a disproportionate proportion of their income - this behaviour of the tax system is as designed, and it is designed that way because of envy; no more and no less.

Rich people gain more from the government than poor people. Ergo, they should pay more for those services. For instance, contract law means a lot more to Pepsi than to Joe Blow making minimum wage at KFC, and all those courts cost money to run.

National defense is also weighted more towards the rich; it's kind of like insurance, the more you have to insure, the more it costs. National defense means more to rich people (who took more of a hit from the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11th, rich people or poor people? ), further, the production of munitions, ships, planes, etc. all benefit rich people more than poor people (the CFO of Lockheed-Martin vs. a janitor for the Lockheed-Martin offices).

And on it goes. If you're rich, government benefits you a lot more than if you're poor. Hence, it is a good idea for the government to get more money from the rich than the poor.

Plus, it is still a good idea to have social services provided by the government, as one that doesn't will lead to problems with the regular citizenry and their views toward the powerful; look at Russia circa 1900-1925 for some examples.

What I don't think is fair is that the proportion of the population that pay no tax at all (and usually make no other contribution either) nevertheless get to decide how other people's tax - and let's not forget that tax is money extorted on threat of imprisonment - is spent.

If you have money, you are paying taxes somewhere; it may be less than what you get back from the government, but, hey, how often have you been pissed off at subsidies to corn growers vs. people getting food stamps (and, guess what: in most states, you have to hold down a job to get food stamps!)?

As for "money extorted on the threat of imprisonment": unless you're living totally off the grid in Montana or Alaska or whatever else wild land, you are earning your money with some assistance from the government or implied assistance if something goes awry with infrastructure or a thousand other things. Because you are using government help in some manner, you should pay to help maintain it and if you don't like where it's going, start writing letters to your congressmen, your president, and other elected officials to tell them what you think needs to be done.

No representation without taxation!

There are 3 men in Congress, one representative and two senators, from your district and state respectively, who are there on your behalf. If you do not like how they are representing you, perhaps you should write to them and let your displeasure be known to these men/women. However, they are there representing you.

[Akhlut]

In other words, an income tax that takes more from one as one accrues more money is the #2 characteristic of a Communist society.

And? Your point being?

The American Progressive movement was heavily influenced by Communism's ideals, and the US income tax on wages was instituted under progressive President Wilson's administration.

Woodrow Wilson was a rabid anti-Communist who sent troops to the USSR to fight against the Reds and support the Whites, as well as imprisoning many prominent American Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists solely for their views and not for any crimes. To say that he was some sort of secret Commie is absurd and retarded.

A progressive income tax, hell a tax on wages at all, was no part of the Constitution until the 16th Amendment was passed in 1912 after being proposed by Taft and seconded by Congress.

Taft was a Republican and the amendment was passed in February 1912, one month before Wilson was in office.

My personal view is that the 16th Amendment's passage was a result of Communist thought on the (progressive) Democrat party, and also an opportunity for Congressmen to get their hands on tax money that could be doled out to their favorite groups, without having to conform to equal apportionment or Census based ratios.

I assume you have a lot of evidence to back up this argument, right?

[kinnison]

Akhlut: "There are 3 men in Congress, one representative and two senators, from your district and state respectively, who are there on your behalf. If you do not like how they are representing you, perhaps you should write to them and let your displeasure be known to these men/women. However, they are there representing you."

Wrong in fact, and in your interpretation of what I was saying. Wrong in fact, because I have neither representative nor senators for the simple reason that I am English.

I do have an MP, who is the rough equivalent of a representative AFAIK; but considering that this particular MP was one of "Blair's Babes" parachuted into the constituency and completely dependent on central government and central Party apparatus for her seat, the chance of her actually supporting any of her constituents in a dispute with central government is currently extremely remote. I do actually have evidence of that, too; my industry is currently under extreme threat from excessive and unjustifiable tightening of regulations, and when I wrote to her the reply came straight from Whitehall. I strongly suspect that much the same applies in the USA. For example, good luck getting the support of your representative if you live in Utah and believe in the loosening of regulations in the selling of alcohol.

Wrong in interpretation, because my meaning for "no representation without taxation" is rather different from what you seem to be assuming. My opinion is quite simple; if you don't contribute in some significant way to your society or any section of it, then your view should not be represented when it comes to making the rules. Heinlein's way would work; another way would be a poll tax, another would be simply based on whether you had a net income tax bill last year - which neatly disposes of the issue of temporary unemployment, and also means that any government employee never gets a vote. There would be exceptions for government employees that actually contribute - serving military, police and firefighters might be examples. Chair-warming paper-shufflers would not be included. Ever. This applies to national politics; similar remarks apply to local issues.

This may well be unconstitutional. OK, so it is - now. The document is not carven in stone, and also I strongly doubt that the founders ever envisaged the number of parasites that currently infest the body politic.

Why am I posting at all in a thread about American politics? Simple, really; all the same issues are present here as well. We are probably a little further along the road to becoming Airstrip One than is the USA, and our sclerotic economy and unprecedented level of surveillance ought to serve as a warning.

(edited for spelling)

[Akhlut]

I do have an MP, who is the rough equivalent of a representative AFAIK; but considering that this particular MP was one of "Blair's Babes" parachuted into the constituency and completely dependent on central government and central Party apparatus for her seat, the chance of her actually supporting any of her constituents in a dispute with central government is currently extremely remote. I do actually have evidence of that, too; my industry is currently under extreme threat from excessive and unjustifiable tightening of regulations, and when I wrote to her the reply came straight from Whitehall. I strongly suspect that much the same applies in the USA. For example, good luck getting the support of your representative if you live in Utah and believe in the loosening of regulations in the selling of alcohol.

Yeah, and that happens too, from time to time. I'm a full-blown Socialist in the USA, and you know how many policies I like are actually being implemented? It's not the greatest thing, but living in a representative republic or similar form of government ends up that way.

Wrong in interpretation, because my meaning for "no representation without taxation" is rather different from what you seem to be assuming. My opinion is quite simple; if you don't contribute in some significant way to your society or any section of it, then your view should not be represented when it comes to making the rules.Heinlein's way would work; another way would be a poll tax, another would be simply based on whether you had a net income tax bill last year - which neatly disposes of the issue of temporary unemployment, and also means that any government employee never gets a vote. There would be exceptions for government employees that actually contribute - serving military, police and firefighters might be examples. Chair-warming paper-shufflers would not be included. Ever. This applies to national politics; similar remarks apply to local issues.

So, poor pensioners don't get to vote now? Glad to see that you think old people shouldn't get representation, while bankers who helped to sink your economy can still vote.

Plus, your chair-warming paper-shufflers might actually do something important, like, oh, make sure infrastructure is maintained by helping to appropriate funding and deciding how exactly to do things. Bureaucracy does sometimes actually perform functions, you know.

This may well be unconstitutional. OK, so it is - now. The document is not carven in stone, and also I strongly doubt that the founders ever envisaged the number of parasites that currently infest the body politic.

I'm sure you have hard numbers regarding how many people are sucking your country bone dry and are actually the problem rather then a symptom, right?

Why am I posting at all in a thread about American politics? Simple, really; all the same issues are present here as well. We are probably a little further along the road to becoming Airstrip One than is the USA, and our sclerotic economy and unprecented level of surveillance ought to serve as a warning.

I imagine that your shitty economy was more brought about by rampant financial idiocy perpetuated by rich assholes rather than poor people, methinks.

[Patrick Degan]

Heinlein's way would work; another way would be a poll tax, another would be simply based on whether you had a net income tax bill last year - which neatly disposes of the issue of temporary unemployment, and also means that any government employee never gets a vote. There would be exceptions for government employees that actually contribute - serving military, police and firefighters might be examples. Chair-warming paper-shufflers would not be included. Ever. This applies to national politics; similar remarks apply to local issues.

Heinlein's system is idiotic as well as unjust. It's predicated upon a false premise: that citizenship is merely a revokable privilege based entirely upon one's work record or service to the country. That sort of system opens the way for massive abuse of the disenfranchised and the creation of a schism in society which can only contribute to far uglier problems in future.

Secondly, you proceed upon another false premise: that government workers are not contributors. Goverments actually need those paper-shufflers to help keep the government's activities organised, or do you actually think that records-keeping and data management are useless activities?

[kinnison]

"I imagine that your shitty economy was more brought about by rampant financial idiocy perpetuated by rich assholes rather than poor people, methinks."

Methinks it is a combination of that and astronomical levels of waste, featherbedding and red tape perpetrated by Stalinist-wannabe politicians over far too many years. Germany and much of the rest of Western Europe were devastated far worse than the UK was by World War II; however, they decided to invest in infrastructure and we decided to "invest" in welfare programmes and consumer goods. The rest is history, or at least it was until the unions got a stranglehold on France and Germany at roughly the same time that their stranglehold on Britain was broken.

British Leyland had the sort of level of employee control that socialists want for every company. Where is British Leyland now? And what are those employees, that thought they had it made, doing now? Note that I didn't use the word "worker".

Not original with me: There are still classes in Britain, but now there are only two - the working class and the shirking class.

"do you actually think that records-keeping and data management are useless activities?" Yes - mostly.

[Thanas]

Methinks it is a combination of that and astronomical levels of waste, featherbedding and red tape perpetrated by Stalinist-wannabe politicians over far too many years. Germany and much of the rest of Western Europe were devastated far worse than the UK was by World War II; however, they decided to invest in infrastructure and we decided to "invest" in welfare programmes and consumer goods. The rest is history, or at least it was until the unions got a stranglehold on France and Germany at roughly the same time that their stranglehold on Britain was broken.

Justify this preposterous nonsense right now, jackass. Where is your source for this?
Do you know that one of the first tasks of the new Federal Republic was sorting out the pensions of the widows and orphans? And do you know that the german welfare programs are actually far older than the Federal Republic of Germany, seeing as they have been in place since Bismarck?

[Terralthra]

Can we get this taken to the Flavian Amphitheatre?

[Kodiak]

Can we get this taken to the Flavian Amphitheatre?

There's so much back-and-forth I think it would be excellent to see a point-by-point from each side. What exactly is the point to be discussed? There have been so many brought up here that it would behoove us to be specific.

[Ghost Rider]

Why? One idiot is making his assertions and the rest are demanding evidence. He's done this before, he's doing it now, and only reason it's get shoved to the one on one is to watch someone do it again on the demands that if he cannot prove his asinine assertions, he gets banned.

[Patrick Degan]

Do you actually think that records-keeping and data management are useless activities?"

Yes - mostly.

Really? Very well, Mr. Kinnison, you will kindly outline for the class just how governmental operations can be successfully carried out without records-keeping and data management —basic and necessary organisational tasks.

[kinnison]

Do you actually think that records-keeping and data management are useless activities?"

Yes - mostly.

Really? Very well, Mr. Kinnison, you will kindly outline for the class just how governmental operations can be successfully carried out without records-keeping and data management —basic and necessary organisational tasks.

Actually, no I won't. The real question is how much of the data collection and management is actually necessary or useful in the first place. A job not worth doing is not worth doing well.

On the larger issue: It seems to me that this whole argument is one between completely irreconcilable opposites. One is that officers of the State know better than any individual how to best employ his money and the other is the exact reverse.

There are two necessary functions of government; defence against enemies (within and without) and maintenance of a stable money supply. Everything else is optional, although there is a hierarchy of government functions of increasing debatability regarding their necessity; maintenance of a usable transport system is possibly next on the list, and it continues in the direction of decreasing certainty.

Even the defence requirement can be corrupted, as evidenced by the fact that the Royal Navy has more flag officers than ships.

There is an extremely strong tendency in any bureaucracy to serve the interests and comfort of its members rather than the purpose for which it was originally designed. This leads to empire building and to the rigid application of rules whether such application actually makes any sense or not. Examples are legion. And commonsense in a bureaucrat is usually punished or at least a poor career move.

Elected officials are hardly immune from this disease, either; the recent expenses scandals among MPs are an example of that.

All this leads to immensely expensive government that can't even get the basics right; as an example in my town, the local town hall has recently been refurbished with such necessities as £100 per roll wallpaper and designer desks, despite the fact that the council offices will be moved again to new premises within a couple of years; meanwhile, there are potholes all over the streets and a good part of the town floods a few inches deep every time it rains. But who cares? It's only taxpayers' money, and it's not as if they have any choice about paying up.

The Kinnison Plan for government spending reduction: Go through the employee list, and fire every third person on it. It's extremely unlikely anyone not related to one of them will ever notice.

I don't claim any of this to be an argument. I am just heartily sick of government flunkies grabbing my hard-earned money and throwing it away. Or giving it to their friends.

[Stark]

'Even' the defence requirement can be corrupted? Fire 33% of the public service AT RANDOM? You're a fucking moron. Oh noes the government took my money and SPENT IT ON SHIT I DON'T AGREE WITH BECAUSE I'M A LOLBERTARIAN. My one vote isn't enough to counteract all the dirty unwashed brown people, so it's UNFAIR SOMEHOW!