patrick.net

freak80 says

I don't understand.

In 1986, Pat Robertson launched his unsuccessful campaign for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination. His candidacy symbolized the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the Republican party, which even Barry Goldwater had complained about years before. Robertson's promises included eliminating the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. He lost the battle but may have won the war within that party; Pat Buchanan declared a "culture war" and Rick Perry and other Republicans often sound like him.

The Democrats have often been only slightly "left" of the Republicans, and as the Republicans have marched "right," the Democrats are often to the "right" of where the Republicans used to be. For example, President Nixon proposed a plan similar to Obamacare, but emphasized it would be voluntary. Nixon also proposed a negative income tax, i.e. a guaranteed minimum income, which instead became the "earned income tax credit" that enables Walmart to underpay workers; today we get ZIRP for TBTF banks and QE to keep housing prices elevated.

freak80 says

Where does that mentality come from?

Probably from seeing taxes as payment for government services.

Call it Crazy says

I wish you made 20 million last year... would you share it with us??

Shit, making 20M a year, and having to pay 2.8M for the privilege of living in a country that lets you pocket about $17M+ in cold hard cash?

curious2 says

EBGuy says

curious2 said:

Really? I hadn't even commented in this thread. Learn to use the quote function.

My apologies. I fixed it in the original. (Now how about selecting a unique icon...)

EBGuy says

My apologies. I fixed it in the original. (Now how about selecting a unique icon...)

Thanks. Done:

@curious2 Nice!

sbh says

reak80 says

The fact that the 99% won't make enough money to buy the stuff they are producting doesn't matter.

Even with a broke population it's no problem since supply creates its own demand: if you make it they will buy.

Paraphrasing Steve Jobs:

We don't ask the people what they want as they don't know until we tell them.

Yup the Keynesians along with most things have this ass backwards...

Indigenous,

You totally missed the point.

I never got back on this, but I thought I'd add this for the Christians in the group:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+12%3A41-44

"41 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. 42 But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a few cents.

43 Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. 44 They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

Christians should explain the disconnect between the idea that Romney paid a lot, with the edict from Jesus, which clearly shows he did not.

Insofar as Jesus is the arbiter of all things ethical for Republicans, I mean.

CL says

Insofar as Jesus is the arbiter of all things ethical for Republicans, I mean.

Republicans are Randists when it comes to MONEY. You can just forget about trying to appeal to their Christianity on any subject involving economics or "the poor". They look at you like the pig does when you try to explain calculus, it just doesn't come across.

CL, I dont get your point.

Even though Romney is a Mormon, so is Senator Reid.

B.A.C.A.H. says

CL, I dont get your point.

Even though Romney is a Mormon, so is Senator Reid.

Right. Several of the previous posts had said, "Romney gave a LOT of money". Technically, from a Xtian perspective he gave less than the widow in the famous parable.

Mormons believe in the New Testament, right?

CL says

Christians should explain the disconnect between the idea that Romney paid a lot, with the edict from Jesus, which clearly shows he did not.

That is a problem that the majority of the Christian church has worldwide, although there always have been small groups who lived ascetically and gave away most of their belongings. A friend of mine is very religious and devotes the majority of his time helping street kids to get off the streets, recover, get health testing and reintegrate into working society. He even moved to Mexico City with for this with his small team. Although we likely don't see eye-to-eye on many issues, I support his cause 100%. The difference is that they work everyday with these children and develop life-long bonds and there is an argument to be made that you should be able to direct your money to good causes as you see fit, instead of having it forcefully taken (some may say stolen) from the government and losing control over where and who the money goes to.

Our society has become so demented in its thinking that it's ok to steal from one person in order to give to another. We should keep this country as an environment of opportunity and freedom, not one of entitlement.

freak80 says

Are you done defending our overlords yet? Why do so many peons (which is 99% of us) defend extreme wealth and power? Is it Stockholm Syndrome?

That's a very good question, to be asked of the apologists for "government." After all, "government" is a tool serving those with extreme wealth and power, ever since there has been "government."

Money and monetary wealth, so long as measured in honest money, is a check on the "government" (the extreme wealthy and powerful hiding behind that facade). The extreme wealthy and power do not need sound money; sound honest money would only be a hinderance to dictators.

"Government" tax and spending can only lead to concentration of wealth in the long run. "Government" decisions on how to spend the tax revenue is by definition centralized redirection of wealth. Guess where resources would go in such a centralized system? 1. waste; 2. the bureaucratic pyramid, with the imperator (top administrator) consuming the bulk of the share.

Dan8267 says

And those people are poor precisely because the Romneys of the world have incomes of tens of millions of dollars a year without producing a penny of wealth, and most often destroying massive amounts of wealth. Get rid of the Romneys of the world and that 47% would have much higher income and productivity.

Do you sell your own programming skills on your own or do you work for some software company? Presumably, you are keeping your job working for someone else because it pays more than you'd make on your own. So how exactly would the elimination of men who made the company that you work for possible and well funded exactly make you more productive? Do you think you'd be more productive growing food in your backyard instead of working for the software company?

Wealth is created through division of labor (ref. Wealth of Nations). Those who play the most pivotal roles in re-arranging division of labor often create far more wealth than those toiling away at specific productive jobs. Don't ever let your mind be poisoned into belittling free market merchants; the flow of exchange is necessary to division of labor. When the free market merchants are outlawed, the government bureaucrats would be monopolizing the flow of exchange in the society . . . the result is systematic looting the society back into the stone age like in North Korea, instead of innovation and progress through price discovery.

By the way, the federal income tax was intended to be a tax solely on the rich to pay for social services and a safety net for the poor. The poor and the middle class were not meant to pay the income tax. They Romneys of the world were the intended recipients.

The federal income tax was intended to make the federal reserve note introduced in that same year (1913) worth something, as in creating a market demand (to pay taxes). The further purpose was to fund a major war, as it followed in 1914 WWI). The burden of that would of course be carried by the bulk of the population, not the super rich war profiteers.

thunderlips11 says

Shit, making 20M a year, and having to pay 2.8M for the privilege of living in a country that lets you pocket about $17M+ in cold hard cash?

The real issue is whether the other societal members are better served by letting the person who earned the money to decide how the money is spent, or let a gaggle of looters to redistribute the money. Unless you believe someone should break into your own house and steal everything then sell and spend the proceeds on whatever they wish . . . as a way of "stimulating the economy" . . .

Once the looters are in place, how long do you think it would be before the person earning $20M figures out that he needs to buy service from the looters to loot others instead of being looted?

Reality says

The real issue is whether the other societal members are better served by letting the person who earned the money to decide how the money is spent

And by "earned", you mean won the birth lottery. Once you take away the facade that the rich are smarter than everyone else, that entire line of thinking falls away.

tatupu70 says

And by "earned", you mean won the birth lottery. Once you take away the
facade that the rich are smarter than everyone else, that entire line of
thinking falls away.

David E. Sloane or Jay Rockefeller?

Both have famous great-grandfathers. The smartest = richest argument falls flat on its face. I think few would argue that Rockefeller did more for society than Edison.

This is really the crux of the argument - only in America do we idolize the rich and famous so completely. What is so interesting about nouveau riche in Atlanta? (or old money in
New York?) Why are these ugly whores on TV? But I digress...

The bottom line is even those that are extremely weathly by the sweat of their own brow are not the smartest or most talented members of our society. Is there a correlation between IQ and wealth? Certainly - though it is not 1.

Anti-tax libertarians refuse to admit that the largest reason for wealth is circumstance and luck. They are lottery players - ignorant of the chances of winning - enticed by the size of the prize. A one in a million shot of becoming a billionaire is better to them than improving the wealth of what the average Joe will earn - even though it is a million times more likely they will die an average Joe.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of folks just as smart as Bill Gates steal ideas better than MS-DOS every year. The circumstances don't line of for them like they did for Bill. Risk taking is rewarded - but by definition there is a downside - that is why it is called risk.

Call it Crazy says

Just as a side note, like I mentioned in the other thread, some people like to throw around "percentages".... Do some quick math to see true "dollars"...

What's 14% of 20 Million?? It's 2.8 Million, so he paid 2.8 million in taxes in ONE year...

How many years would it take YOU to pay 2.8 million in taxes based on your salary???

Even though he paid a lower "percentage" then we think he should, that's still a lot dollars going into the treasury for the government to spend...

How many average 50K a year people paying taxes does it take to equal the same 2.8 million to the treasury??

You just proved that you are hands down the biggest idiot posting on Pat.net. You don't have a clue. It is very sad that you are so dumb that you don't understand why percentages are used for comparisons. Go back to school and take some basic math classes you moron.

CIRCA 1985-2006
"I'm paid a great deal of money for my innovative, think outside the box competitive mindset. My proprietary financial instruments are a more efficient and stable way of financing mortgages,and creates wealth in a win-win for everybody, thanks to my superior intelligence and independent mind."

2007-2009
"It's not my fault --- EVERYBODY ELSE WAS DOING IT!!!! Leave my bonusaloooooonnne!"

WTF or ROTFL?

yup1 says

why percentages are used for comparisons.

Which is why the only vehicle to fairness is to ensure that part timers making minimum wage are also taxed at 39%. Only when they have skin in the game, something at stake will they truly learn that shit ain't free....

I'll gladly swap w-2s and tax bills with anyone upset about the fairness in the 39.6% bracket.

All I ask in return is that you notify your HR of a change in your direct deposit routing and account numbers. Send me a PM and I will give you the information you need.

dublin hillz says

Which is why the only vehicle to fairness is to ensure that part timers
making minimum wage are also taxed at 39%. Only when they have skin in the game,
something at stake will they truly learn that shit ain't free....

You do realize that part-timers making minimum wage pay the same rate on their first $12k in income that a doctor pays on his first $12k in income, right?

control point says

dublin hillz says

Which is why the only vehicle to fairness is to ensure that part timers
making minimum wage are also taxed at 39%. Only when they have skin in the game,
something at stake will they truly learn that shit ain't free....

You do realize that part-timers making minimum wage pay the same rate on their first $12k in income that a doctor pays on his first $12k in income, right?

Of course, so the solution is to just drop the 39.6% rate on the first cent that is earned....

dublin hillz says

Which is why the only vehicle to fairness is to ensure that part timers making minimum wage are also taxed at 39%. Only when they have skin in the game, something at stake will they truly learn that shit ain't free....

That would entirely depend on ones definition of fairness...

dublin hillz says

Of course, so the solution is to just drop the 39.6% rate on the first cent
that is earned....

Sure. Just have to equalize the pay rates for each now....

give me back my surplus value! now!

control point says

dublin hillz says

Of course, so the solution is to just drop the 39.6% rate on the first cent
that is earned....

Sure. Just have to equalize the pay rates for each now....

That is not really necessary because the capitalist "invisible hand" will work in such a way that rents, groceries, car insurance, consumer staples, bus passes will adjust downwards in price to negate the loss of consumer purchase power due to higher taxes. And as an added bonus due to having skin in the game, the poor will learn good ol' values that shit ain't free. In essence the higher tax bracket can "spread the wealth around" from these companies that will lower prices due to invisible hand to for example our military which will get dibs on extra 20% on that revenue. Thus, they can build even greater fighter jets, tanks and stock up on them bombs. Consequently, russia, china and iran will never fuck with us again and when people go shopping to the mall they will never have to look up at the sky to wonder if today is the day that we will get bombed.

I love how people demonize the wealthy as undeserving of what they have and that it's all luck. Sure, there are people who are born into wealth...but for every person born into it, there's a person who took risks and worked their butt off to truly earn it. Are you going to build a committee to determine whether someone truly earns their wealth? If that's the case, all lottery winners wouldn't get anything and would have to give it back to the gov't since it was pure luck and they didn't earn a dime. This thinking is ridiculous.

If anything, tax huge estates being passed on to heirs instead of taxing the brains out of somebody making $250,000 per year trying to support a family on his own in NYC or CA. Also, I could see getting rid of the dividend and capital gains tax rates and just having that taxed at normal income rates...that would solve your Romney/Buffet whining.

debyne says

I love how people demonize the wealthy as undeserving of what they have and that it's all luck. Sure, there are people who are born into wealth...but for every person born into it, there's a person who took risks and worked their butt off to truly earn it

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

Bullcrap.

The only one on that top 10 list who could be called self-made, meaning he came from a working or middle class family, is Ellison. And he was greatly helped by massive Cold War MIC Spending funded, of course, by taxpayers. Every other one came from a top 1% (usually .1%) family.

When 90% of Americans are Middle Class, Working Class, or Lumpenproles, but only 1 of the top ten richest people come from 90% of America, what does that tell you?

Reality says

Presumably, you are keeping your job working for someone else because it pays more than you'd make on your own.

This is dependent on the system of economics and laws used by a society and that is exactly what I am questioning. Is it beyond your imagination that mankind could possibly come up with an economic system that is superior to capitalism in the modern, technology driven world? Or does your religion have such a strong sway over you that it is inconceivable that an economic system developed in Middle Ages and peaked in the 18th century could possibly be made obsolete by technological and social advancements?

A local maximum is rarely a global maximum, and those local and global maximums are subject to change whenever the environment changes. As such it is certainly reasonable for the people to demand such changes so that they can explore new strategies that would yield higher satisfaction.

Reality says

The federal income tax was intended to make the federal reserve note introduced in that same year (1913) worth something, as in creating a market demand (to pay taxes).

The federal income tax was a bargaining chip that the bankers used to get President Wilson to accept a central bank, the Federal Reserve. Wilson wanted social safety nets for the poor. The federal income tax, which he had intended only the rich to pay, was Wilson's means to pay for those social safety nets and anti-poverty programs. Ironically, today the rich pay far less income tax than the middle class. See Mitt Romney.

Wilson accepted the deal that he would allow the Federal Reserve in exchange for this tax. Wilson later regretted the deal saying,

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

This is a long, but good documentary on the history of money and central banking. It's been posted on this site many times, but still more people need to watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HfpO-WBz_mw

thunderlips11 says

debyne says

I love how people demonize the wealthy as undeserving of what they have and that it's all luck. Sure, there are people who are born into wealth...but for every person born into it, there's a person who took risks and worked their butt off to truly earn it

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

Bullcrap.

The only one on that top 10 list who could be called self-made, meaning he came from a working or middle class family, is Ellison. And he was greatly helped by massive Cold War MIC Spending funded, of course, by taxpayers. Every other one came from a top 1% (usually .1%) family.

When 90% of Americans are Middle Class, Working Class, or Lumpenproles, but only 1 of the top ten richest people come from 90% of America, what does that tell you?

You're talking about a handful of multi-billionaires...hardly a representative sample to make your argument. What do you consider wealthy? Is a brain surgeon wealthy, or do you have to be Larry Ellison?

jazz music says

@ debyne: I demonize the *fallacy* of calling the system capitalism when it is cronyism.

There are no self-made men unless they somehow rose from jungle isolation to prominence in Burlingame: The lucky newly rich played the system like a violin. The old money cliques socially ostracize the newly rich because they mostly wind up falling back to earth. (not having that inheritance backing them)

So what's your alternative? Socialism? You're referring to capitalism as cronyism when that's not the case. Capitalism is not what you see today. Cronyism on both sides is what you see today, and the common denominator is government. So why wouldn't you want to shrink government so that cronyism in DC is less likely to happen? Going socialist and increasing government just makes the problem worse.

debyne says

You're talking about a handful of multi-billionaires...hardly a representative sample to make your argument. What do you consider wealthy? Is a brain surgeon wealthy, or do you have to be Larry Ellison?

Wealthy to me means you can live a middle class lifestyle off your wealth, without needing a job, social security payments, or pension. Hence, "Wealthy".

@thunderlips

Wow...and that's a bad thing? You want to take that away from someone who achieves that through hard work, discipline and being smart? Our country is screwed.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

The real issue is whether the other societal members are better served by letting the person who earned the money to decide how the money is spent

And by "earned", you mean won the birth lottery. Once you take away the facade that the rich are smarter than everyone else, that entire line of thinking falls away.

Not at all. Political priviledges are far more heritable from one generation to the next than wealth in a competitive market place. In fact, the old money started dabbling in politics precisely in order to find a way to preserve family wealth and status in subsequent generations; e.g. Roosevelts, Kennedys, Bushes, etc.. Those heritable political provileges are akin to aristocracy. The emergence of relatively free market place was what displaced the European aristocracy after the Englightenment. What the leftist pursue as the socialist ideal is in reality nothing more than the reinstatement of aristocracy sheltered from the vagaries of market competition and creative destruction. The result is declining social mobility for subsequent generations.

control point says

The bottom line is even those that are extremely weathly by the sweat of their
own brow are not the smartest or most talented members of our society. Is there
a correlation between IQ and wealth? Certainly - though it is not 1.

Why should high IQ be rewarded? Should an exceptionally clever mass murderer be richly rewarded? Although they usually are in the political world: the exceptionally clever mass murderers are usually called "the leaders."

Free market means market participants, especially the average Joe and Jane consumers, are able to spend their resources as they see fit. The result is that those catering to Joe and Jane the average consumers the best tend to get resources to make the next generation of goods and services that Joes and Janes are more likely to like. It's as simple as that. The clever mass murderers and their witting and unwitting lackeys OTOH always try to tell Joe and Jane that the clever mass murderers and their lackeys are better at allocating resources, according to some made-up template instead of free individual choice in the market place.

Dan8267 says

Reality
says

Presumably, you are keeping your job working for someone else because it pays
more than you'd make on your own.

This is dependent on the system of economics and laws used by a society and
that is exactly what I am questioning.

There is only one set of natural law and economics: individual human action. All the writen laws are little more than facade. If your software is as enticing as porn or drugs, no amount of man made law can keep your software from the black market.

Is it beyond your imagination that
mankind could possibly come up with an economic system that is superior to
capitalism in the modern, technology driven world?

There have been many utopian dreams concocted to displace free individual human choice . . . they all failed miserably. Every generation of human being has been living in a "modern, technology driven world" compared to prior generations ever since at least when the wheel was invented and the horse was tamed.

Or does your religion have
such a strong sway over you that it is inconceivable that an economic system
developed in Middle Ages and peaked in the 18th century could possibly be made
obsolete by technological and social advancements?

Relatively free market economy has emerged and faded in human history several times. The Mediterranean had a relatively free market economy before the age of Roman Empire. That was about 1500 years before the current relatively free market economy started to take shape some 500 years ago. 1500 years before Roman Empire, there was a free wheeling economy in the Indus Valley. Incidentally, indoor plumbing also emerged in human history three times, roughly corresponding to the tail end of those three relatively free market eras. There's something to be said about youths born into high standards of living, then proceed to turn their own society back to the stone age, or at least making it so poor that their offsprings having to shit in the out-house instead.