patrick.net

Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY

Wait, you're actually for fairness? I thought you were a Republican.

So if you think fairness is a good thing, do you also think it's fair that bankers who completely failed in the free market should get massive taxpayer bailouts to pay their gigantic bonuses?

And do you think it's fair that their tax rate on those gigantic bonuses is lower than the middle class tax rate?

106 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 3:31am

Construction??

No. But many of my most free spending clients during the peak must have been getting money from construction and real-estate/financing. Some of them probably saw 90% decline, if not 100% (ie. going out of business). My business was only secondarily related to that money flow. The vendors that I buy from saw my spending at their counters decline by anywhere between 30% to 90%. Heck, even the USPS/UPS/FedEX saw a 60% decline in their business from me.

107 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 3:46am

Flat tax? No problem. Just make the flat tax rate 90%, and include all estate and capital gains tax rates as the same.

Economy is not about throwing "macro" numbers around, but the very detailed decisions and choices that each of us make everyday in deciding what we prefer. That's how limited resources in society (including time and space) get channeled to producing what can improve our lives. Concentrating all the decision making powers into the hands of government bureaucrats would only foster corruption, violence and inhumanity.

Retirement age could be 50 then. Government provides a basic level of shelter, food, health care, post secondary education, personal transportation, and entertainment.

Here's the problem: when we go to a grocery store or a restaurant, we do not buy a blob called "food" (much less "basic level of food"). Instead, we buy apple (specific breed of apple, not crab apple), chicken (specific cut of specific quality), beef (specific cut and freshness), eggs, etc. etc. based on our economic means and personal preference/priorities. Taking 90% of what the producers and distributors can make from bringing forth the apples, chicken, beef and eggs would quickly disincentivize them from continuing the effort.

We already have examples of what it's like to have a 90% tax rate and have the government provide a basic level of food to everyone . . . as in a really really basic level that is far below what we enjoy today in the US. Look to North Korea for your answer. There is literally no lower bounds to how low a basic level of food, shelter, medicine, education and transportation can go. All of that is provided for more or less free in North Korea . . . all extremely basic, to a level that we'd consider barbarous existence, for all except for the select few leaders of course.

108 david1 2011 Oct 12, 4:13am

Reality,

I am not advocating a 90% flat tax rate and government takeover of the food industry - as I said, I was being sarcastic.

What I was doing was making the argument that if a constant tax rate is "fair," then a 90% flat tax rate is also fair.

Taking 90% of what the producers and distributors can make from bringing forth the apples, chicken, beef and eggs would quickly disincentivize them from continuing the effort.

I see this Republican talking point all the time. I would like to see any validation to the statement however. This is essentially the "you can't tax the job creators" argument. What the data shows is that GDP growth is over 2% higher in real terms when the highest marginal tax rate is over 50% in this country. Now correlation is not causation, and higher taxes do not neccesarily equate to greater economic growth. That is the correlation, though there are many other factors that contribute to economic growth. So I don't see how the argument can be made that higher tax rates causes laziness (and lower economic output). Show me the data, don't just speak anecdotally.

All of that is provided for more or less free in North Korea . . . all extremely basic, to a level that we'd consider barbarous existence, for all except for the select few leaders of course.

Barbarous is in the eye of the beholder. Have you ever been to North Korea? Maybe I think it is barbarous that 1/6 of out country goes without healthcare.

The most interesting thing you say here is "all except for a few leaders." I guess it depends on how many, on what percent, is a few, but to me 1% is a few. We have leaders here (that 1%) that would look at how the rest of live as pretty barbarous. Well at least if they had to live that way. They are fine with us living that way obviously.

My point is you mention how barbarous it is in North Korea for a few leaders to live well while the rest have a much more basic sort of life. How is that different from the US? We have leaders..they live much better than we do...

109 corntrollio 2011 Oct 12, 5:01am

I find the idea of a flat tax to be absurd. But it is close to what we have already (not including capital gains tax being lower).

It's pretty close to what we have if you look at effective tax rates.

Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on".

Nice strawman, but completely unfounded in reality. I've never seen anyone express this view. Hell, I'm one of the people taxes would go up on. Man, Bap's comments keep getting more unintelligent and more unintelligible over time.

That has nothing to do with progressive taxation, and everything to do with an overly complicated tax code.

Agreed. This is what Congress does. You take a simple code, then you add all kinds of loopholes to it over time. Eventually, you blow the whole code away and then start over as lobbyists hack away at it.

110 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 5:03am

What I was doing was making the argument that if a constant tax rate is "fair," then a 90% flat tax rate is also fair.

Tax is not fair because it is forcible taking. Some forms are somewhat less unfair than others.

So I don't see how the argument can be made that higher tax rates causes laziness (and lower economic output). Show me the data, don't just speak anecdotally.

Take away 90% of the salary of all government employees, and see how many of them will show up for work. hmm, I seem to recall many of them were striking due to a 10% reduction or less.

Barbarous is in the eye of the beholder. Have you ever been to North Korea? Maybe I think it is barbarous that 1/6 of out country goes without healthcare.

Are you really that clueless? Hundreds if not thousands of starving North Koreans flee to China each year, a place where some of us believe slave labor is prevailing working condition, in order to make a living. Healthcare and medical insurance (getting ripped off by insurance companies before getting medical service) are two entirely different issues. Even the poorest in the US are living far better lives than the average people in North Korea.

The most interesting thing you say here is "all except for a few leaders." I guess it depends on how many, on what percent, is a few, but to me 1% is a few.

Another sign of basic math failure. 1% of 300mil is 3 million people! That's an enormous number of people. The only people enjoy good standards of living in North Korea are in the immediate entourage of their "Dear Leader."

We have leaders here (that 1%) that would look at how the rest of live as pretty barbarous. Well at least if they had to live that way. They are fine with us living that way obviously.

That's utter bullshit. The top 1%, or 3 million people, are not leaders. Most of them are hapless victims of over-taxation and over-regulation just like the rest of us.

My point is you mention how barbarous it is in North Korea for a few leaders to live well while the rest have a much more basic sort of life. How is that different from the US? We have leaders..they live much better than we do...

The "barbarous existence" that I mentioned in regard to North Korea was referring to the low absolute standards of living for most people living there. They are literally starving! despite government promise to deliver a basic level of food, shelter, medicine, education, etc. etc. all for free. How many starving Americans do you know have been dodging internal security and border patrols to flee to China to have a chance at making a living in what some of us consider "slave labor"?

111 david1 2011 Oct 12, 5:30am

Take away 90% of the salary of all government employees, and see how many of them will show up for work. hmm, I seem to recall many of them were striking due to a 10% reduction or less.

Anecdoctal. Not proof...no data.

Even the poorest in the US are living far better lives than the average people in North Korea.

Ahh..poor, but at least not dirt poor.

Ok...you are fighting over ~60% of our wealth while the top 1% takes the other 40%. I'd rather fight to take part of that 40%.

How many starving Americans do you know have been dodging internal security and border patrols to flee to China to have a chance at making a living in what some of us consider "slave labor"?

None. How many North Koreans to do you that have done the same to China? None. Apparently facts are not your strong suit. According to wikipedia (a suspect source I know, but better than any other I have seen posted by YOU) there are 20-30,000 North Korean refugees in China. 60-70% of those are women, 70-80% of those due to human trafficking. So about half of at most 30,000 are leaving N. Korea? Wow. The flight from peril in North Korea is shocking.

Look up the demographics of that 1% and then come back and try to argue they are not, for the most part, our leaders.

What is a leader? Look up your Senator. He is in there. Your Rep. probably is too. State Senators, probably. Your doctor, he probably is. Your boss, he is. Or his boss. Let me check. Nope - no fry cooks. Let's see, who else is in that 1%...oh yeah, that guy you listen to on the radio and get your talking points...he is in there. All of the guys you watch on TV are in that group too...

Do you know what a leader is?

112 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 5:56am

Anecdoctal. Not proof...no data.

Do actually believe taking away 90% of all public employees' wages and salaries, and they will continue to show up for work? If that's the case, government deficit can be solved instantly: cut all public employees' salaries by 90%!

Ahh..poor, but at least not dirt poor.

Ok...you are fighting over ~60% of our wealth while the top 1% takes the other 40%. I'd rather fight to take part of that 40%.

What do you mean by "take"? Taxation and government spending does not take wealth and distribute out to the population evenly. Do you actually believe that if we break down a multi-million dollar MRI machine into screws and bolts and give it out to everyone, the pieces can still do MRI? If you believe 40% of capital assets are owned and controlled by 3,000,000 people, how does transfer that decision making power to the top 3000 or so top government officials and their assistants help you? At least with the 3,000,000, you have the option of choosing another vendor to deal with if you find one not to your liking. With government bureaucrats, you have no alternative choice. Does it matter if you have a nominal/ficticious share in that ownership that you can not possibly sell? Ask the starving North Koreans: each one of them is allegedly an owner in all their country's wealth.

None. How many North Koreans to do you that have done the same to China? None. Apparently facts are not your strong suit. According to wikipedia (a suspect source I know, but better than any other I have seen posted by YOU) there are 20-30,000 North Korean refugees in China. 60-70% of those are women, 70-80% of those due to human trafficking. So about half of at most 30,000 are leaving N. Korea? Wow. The flight from peril in North Korea is shocking.

Say what? Do you even read the numbers you cite? Tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled North Korea to be in China in search of better living. The same China that some of us believe having slave labor working conditions. Do you have any idea the risk a North Korean has to undertake to flee his/her homeland? Does the shooting deaths of East Germans fleeing to West Germany ring a bell? North Korean government has similar shoot to kill orders against all citizens trying to flee their de facto serfdom.

Look up the demographics of that 1% and then come back and try to argue they are not, for the most part, our leaders.

1% is 3,000,000 people in this country! Math is obviously not your forte.

What is a leader? Look up your Senator. He is in there. Your Rep. probably is too. State Senators, probably. Your doctor, he probably is. Your boss, he is. Or his boss. Let me check. Nope - no fry cooks. Let's see, who else is in that 1%...oh yeah, that guy you listen to on the radio and get your talking points...he is in there. All of the guys you watch on TV are in that group too...

Do you know what a leader is?

Is that some kind joke? You are equating lawmakers that constitute 0.0001% of the population with people with any sorts of expertise therefore often listened to, like 10-20% of the population? You can fire your doctor any time. You can quit your job any time. With government officials imposed on you at the point of the gun, it's an entirely different story.

Any and all taxation is nothing more than concentrating power from the 3,000,000-100,000,000 people to a much tighter group of 1/1000 that size.

113 david1 2011 Oct 12, 6:35am

Do actually believe taking away 90% of all public employee's income, and they will continue to show up for work? If that's the case, government deficit can be solved instantly: cut all public employees' salaries by 90%!

Isn't this what I already joked about? Yes, if you take away 90% of everyone income (not sure why you are only restricting it to public employees) then yes, they would still show up for work. 10% of something is better than 00% of nothing. As I said, other than your anecdoctal arguments about this being true, do you have any proof as such? There are many times in the history of this country where marginal tax rates were higher than they are now...how was the economy then compared to now? How about this: show me where one person was ever hired strictly because of lower taxes.

Do you actually believe that if we break down a multi-million dollar MRI machine into screws and bolts and give it out to everyone, the machine can still do MRI?

This doesn't even make sense. Why would you have to break it down to pieces to distribute it? The value of the MRI is in the task it performs, not the sum of the parts of which it is contructed. Yes, if the government owned the MRI machine it would still perform MRIs. Ohio State Medical Center I am sure owns a few MRI machines and they probably work.

Is that some kind joke? You are equating lawmakers that constitute 0.0001% of the population with people with any sorts of expertise therefore often listened to, like 10-20% of the population?

Are you arguing that those types of professions I listed are not leaders? What is a leader to you? Only those Elected? Sorry to tell you, but those guys who are elected are not really leading anything. We live in a plutocracy and the wealth IS the leader. Do you think it is a coincidence that ALL of the central bankers and leaders of the largest corporations, and most of the politicians are wealthy?

All I ask is you look up the demographics of the top 1%, what they do, and then come back and tell me what percent are or are not leaders. Again, there will be strong correlation between the two....

Say what? Do you even read the numbers you cite?

Apparently you don't. There are currently about 500,000 US expats. There are 24 million North Koreans, 300 million Americans. So .0625% or North Koreans have left for China. .16% of Americans have left for greener pastures. Point is I wouldn't point to the "hundreds if not thousands of North Koreans each year" fleeing to China as an indicator that conditions are horrible in North Korea. I don't know if the conditions are horrible in North Korea. I have never been there. Neither do you...but you can't make the argument that since SOME (a very small part, actually) of the North Korean population goes to China as an indication that people are starving in North Korea.

Any and all taxation is nothing more than concentrating power from the 3,000,000-100,000,000 people to a much tighter group of 1/1000 that size.

Utter nonsense. Expenditures EXCEED tax receipts. The current population is getting more for their taxes than they are paying in.

114

Bap33 2011 Oct 12, 6:38am

Bap33 says

Has anyone else noticed that the common view held by the anti-fair-taxation people seems to be that all rich people are rich for no good reason, or got to be rich UNFAIRLY so they all should be made to pay for all earnings above what "they" (the anti-fair crowd) feel is enough to "get by on".

I've never once seen that argument. It's a strawman.

The additional tax burden for "the rich" is fair, because money grows exponentially, and because beyond a certain point (when bills are paid), additional discretionary income is far different than the income that takes one up to where they can afford a good education for their kids, and a good retirement.
If you were to (or could) graph a function that valued the "need" for more money, or the possibility of using money productively, as a function of income level, you find that once a persons net worth gets beyond certain point, this need is decreasing.

tatupu,
Should I assume that you have marcus blocked so you can't see his posts?

115

tatupu70 2011 Oct 12, 6:41am

tatupu,
Should I assume that you have marcus blocked so you can't see his posts?

I don't see anywhere in Marcus' post statements saying rich people are rich for no reason, or that they got to be rich unfairly.

116

Bap33 2011 Oct 12, 8:54am

oh, nice save tatupu!
So, we'll just assume the rest of my "stawman" is correct, and my personal take on the reason for the anti-fair-tax people to attack rich folk is just inferred from their actions and statements .... fair enough?

You do realize this takes us all the way back to my very first point where I wanted to know how rich was rich enough to be unfairly taxed, and who says so, and why them .. don't you?
one nation
one vote
one tax
one God
one language
one culture

Lord Barry and the Obamites demand that there be at least two each of these in America. I humbly suggest we have one.

117

leo707 2011 Oct 12, 9:07am

one nation
one vote
one tax
one God
one language
one culture

You got the first two right, but the nation that you describe has never existed and much of what you seem to want the founding fathers fought to free themselves from.

So, we'll just assume the rest of my "stawman" is correct

Bap you are very good a representing your own viewpoint and I think most here understand where you stand on the issues, sorry to say but you are terrible at trying to describe the views of others. I am not sure if this is intentional, you just don't care what others actually think, or you have been somehow convinced in incorrect assumptions of others. So, yes whenever you frame the views of others they are "straw men".

It is OK to disagree with people, but it helps to understand what their viewpoint is in the first place. Are you over 30? I am assuming that you are. Recent study has shown that you may benefit from taking a course of mushrooms. This may help you to better understand where others are coming from.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/40469

118

tatupu70 2011 Oct 12, 9:10am

So, we'll just assume the rest of my "stawman" is correct, and my personal take on the reason for the anti-fair-tax people to attack rich folk is just inferred from their actions and statements .... fair enough?

I don't know--I think a lot(most?) of the anti-fair tax people understand that it's not a fair tax at all. It is highly regressive and will do great harm to the overall economy. One of the biggest problems facing our country is the wealth disparity and a "fair" tax would only make things worse.

You do realize this takes us all the way back to my very first point where I wanted to know how rich was rich enough to be unfairly taxed, and who says so, and why them .. don't you?

And I'll again remind you that "fairness" is a very poor way to set up a tax structure. Fair is highly subjective. What I consider "fair" is obviously very different than what you consider "fair". A tax structure needs to be designed to maximize overall economic efficiency. And a regressive flat tax is very inefficient.

119

leo707 2011 Oct 12, 9:27am

And I'll again remind you that "fairness" is a very poor way to set up a tax structure. Fair is highly subjective. What I consider "fair" is obviously very different than what you consider "fair". A tax structure needs to be designed to maximize overall economic efficiency. And a regressive flat tax is very inefficient.

Yep, I remember the first time a flat tax was described to me I thought that it sounded unfair. It has always been so strange to me that others call it the "fair tax". What is fair about a system that assures a majority of people will slowly be driven to poverty, while a few become kings?

I guess I think that fairness is a good way to set up taxes. I just think that it is fair for those that receive the most benefits from our society to pay more to support it.

120 Honest Abe 2011 Oct 12, 9:29am

Stealing all the wealth from the wealthy still won't be enough to stop the hemorrhaging. What part of "stop the spending" don't YOU PEOPLE understand?

ps - the spending is going to stop...when the leviathan collapses under its own weight. Dummkopfs.

121

leo707 2011 Oct 12, 9:32am

Honest Abe says

Stealing all the wealth from the wealthy

I have not seen anyone here advocate this. Is there a post I missed?

Honest Abe says

What part of "stop the spending" don't YOU PEOPLE understand?

Are you saying zero spending? I think most here agree that we need to cut back on spending. I am not sure why you would think otherwise.

122 corntrollio 2011 Oct 12, 9:45am

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/

one tax
one God
one language
one culture

Yeah, these are just your personal beliefs, not particularly enlightened, and not in the constitution and don't even fit with reality (the US was NEVER meant to be "one culture" -- in fact the whole point was that earlier settlers were not within one culture). You are this guy:

123

Bap33 2011 Oct 12, 9:46am

leo, great point. I was wrong to put God in that list, and culture is pretty iffy to, so it could be removed. The rest are pretty much what would work best.

Our FF did not want the Gov mandated and carried out welfare/wealth transfers between voting citizens either. Expressly. Agreed?

I agree, my writting skills are not on par with most regualr posters on here. I am over 40.

As for the wealth not being spread under a flat tax, and the current unfair tax system being the answer ..... ummmm .... if the current way has all of the differences in wealth and concentrations that you wish to avoid, why would you want to just to more of the same thing?? That is a common mistake for most liberal minded programs that fail ,,,, when the mistake is made evident, the liberal mind suggests that the answer would be more of the same. Double-down, for lack of a better term. Welfare systems of every shape prove that we get more and more of the bad thing that we are trying to address by the gov sponsoring of that lifestyle. Giving SSI to dopeheads who claim they are disabled results in more dope heads claiming SSI - for example. Allowing farmers and companies to hire invaders results in more invaders working in America - another example.

leoj707 says

I just think that it is fair for those that receive the most benefits from our society to pay more to support it.

ummmm ... leo, care to explain "most benefit"?

124 corntrollio 2011 Oct 12, 9:48am

Our FF did not want the Gov mandated and carried out welfare/wealth transfers between voting citizens either. Expressly.

You are wrong. There's nothing that indicates the founding fathers believed that. In fact, very few things people say "the founding fathers" believed are true. People constantly forget that the Constitution was a COMPROMISE and that there were people who disagreed vehemently but were able to agree on a minimal set of common principles. Trying to ascribe one particular view to all the founding fathers is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Honest Abe says

What part of "stop the spending" don't YOU PEOPLE understand?

You only want to "stop the spending" you disagree with but want to keep the stuff you agree with. That's not really a useful principle nor does it give us a key to good government.

125 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 9:50am

Yes, if you take away 90% of everyone income (not sure why you are only restricting it to public employees) then yes, they would still show up for work. 10% of something is better than 00% of nothing.

0% of nothing would only apply if the person has absolutely zero marketable skills and depend on government pay checks as the only source of possible income. Even a person dumb as a door nail would be able to find alternative employment, even if paid under the table, if a 90% tax is applied to his government job. A 100-200% sales tax, i.e. tax amounting to 50-67% of money changing hand, is enough to cause bootleg cigarette trafficking. Try to give some credit to people's creativity; not all of them are as dumb as door nails.

As I said, other than your anecdoctal arguments about this being true, do you have any proof as such?

What do you think the soviet systems were? "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work" was not mere anecdote, but statistical norm for billions of people in the world only three decades ago!

There are many times in the history of this country where marginal tax rates were higher than they are now...how was the economy then compared to now? How about this: show me where one person was ever hired strictly because of lower taxes.

Top marginal tax rate is not the same as average tax rate. . . when the top marginal tax rate was extremely high, companies simply gave their executives perks instead of honest pay . . . just like in soviet systems. If you really want to play the correlation game about how the economy was, there were no personal computer back then either. So should we ban personal computers in order to get the 50's back?

You want one person who was hired strictly because tax was reduced? Millions of people were hired when the formerly soviet countries removed confiscatory tax rates.

This doesn't even make sense. Why would you have to break it down to pieces to distribute it? The value of the MRI is in the task it performs, not the sum of the parts of which it is contructed. Yes, if the government owned the MRI machine it would still perform MRIs. Ohio State Medical Center I am sure owns a few MRI machines and they probably work.

The soviet factories turned out cars. Except they were turning out 1940's cars in the 1980's! The fact that an MRI machine or a car factory can not be broken up into pieces and still preserve their functional value shows that someone has to be deciding how the capital asset is to be used and up-kept as well upgraded! Human history has shown over and over again that such capital assets' allocation, up-keep and eventual replacement is better handled through competitive private ownership instead of un-ownership / public-ownership.

Are you arguing that those types of professions I listed are not leaders? What is a leader to you? Only those Elected? Sorry to tell you, but those guys who are elected are not really leading anything.

When you define a leader as anyone having any expertise therefore other people may voluntarily choose to listen to them, the concept becomes utterly meaningless in this discussion. The fry cook and indeed the server in the cafeteria becomes your leader when he/she tells you to bring your tray closer! That's how assinine your definition of leader has become.

The real issue is power and especially coercive power. Whether someone is elected is only secondary to whether that person is endowed with coercive power in our legal system. A police officer has far more power over you at a traffic stop than a doctor that you are choosing to visit.

We live in a plutocracy and the wealth IS the leader. Do you think it is a coincidence that ALL of the central bankers and leaders of the largest corporations, and most of the politicians are wealthy?

Wealth in and of itself has no power over you in a free market place unless you voluntarily choose to follow. For example, Apple has the world's largest capitalization and Steve Jobs was among the richest, yet you did not have to buy a single Apple product . . . and I regrettable did not (Verizon did not have iPhone yet the last time I updated my phone). OTOH, in our kleptocracy, political coercive power is used by some to get rich, including your example of central bankers and their friends.

All I ask is you look up the demographics of the top 1%, what they do, and then come back and tell me what percent are or are not leaders. Again, there will be strong correlation between the two....

What's your point? By your definition anyone with an ounce of intelligence become leaders just because other people voluntarily choose to take their advice (like your doctor). What's your point? Rage against all expertise? Rage against division of labor? What kind of brain dead idea is that?

There are people who use their coercive political powers to get rich and gain more power . . . and that is the real problem

Apparently you don't. There are currently about 500,000 US expats. There are 24 million North Koreans, 300 million Americans. So .0625% or North Koreans have left for China. .16% of Americans have left for greener pastures.

Are you serious? You are comparing American expats to Norh Korean refugees living in camps? How many Americans have expatriated to China as refugees? While I can certainly agree that thanks to wannabe fascists like yourself America is not what it used to be, and more and more Americans are starting to consider expatriation to greener pastures that have lower taxation and less restrictive governments . . . but China as greener pasture? Get real. What China has is a fascist government, only somewhat less fascist than that of North Korea.

Point is I wouldn't point to the "hundreds if not thousands of North Koreans each year" fleeing to China as an indicator that conditions are horrible in North Korea. I don't know if the conditions are horrible in North Korea. I have never been there. Neither do you...but you can't make the argument that since SOME (a very small part, actually) of the North Korean population goes to China as an indication that people are starving in North Korea.

The willful blindness among the wannabe fascists is truly astounding. How about North Korean government itself, prideful as it is, asking for food aid from South Korea and Japan and the US? How about millions of tons of food aid shipped from China to North Korea to put a lid on refugee traffic? How about the zillions of pictures showing emaciated North Koreans? How about repeated reports of starvation in North Korea? Are you really that ignorant?

126

tatupu70 2011 Oct 12, 10:07am

if the current way has all of the differences in wealth and concentrations that you wish to avoid, why would you want to just to more of the same thing?

I don't want more of the same. I want Clinton tax levels back. Or even better--1950s levels. You seem to run into problems when you assume what liberals want--maybe it's best you don't do that...

127

leo707 2011 Oct 12, 10:12am

http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.txt

Our FF did not want the Gov mandated and carried out welfare/wealth transfers between voting citizens either. Expressly. Agreed?

I am not so sure about this. I just did a quick search an it seems like Thomas Paine (a founding father) thought that "welfare" was a "right" for unlanded persons. Is there evidence that any of the other founding fathers actively opposed these "wealth transfers"?

Cultivation is at least one of the greatest natural improvements ever made by human invention. It has given to created earth a tenfold value. But the landed monopoly that began with it has produced the greatest evil. It has dispossessed more than half the inhabitants of every nation of their natural inheritance, without providing for them, as ought to have been done, an indemnification for that loss, and has thereby created a species of poverty and wretchedness that did not exist before.

In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings.

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

I agree, my writting skills are not on par with most regualr posters on here. I am over 40.

I don't think you are the only one here over 40. I would not worry too much about your writing skills as long as you can be understood.

ummmm ... leo, care to explain "most benefit"?

People who have more wealth are getting more benefit from our society.

I think that Elizabeth Warren sums it up quite well:

I hear all this, you know, â€˜Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own â€” nobody.

You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didnâ€™t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory â€” and hire someone to protect against this â€” because of the work the rest of us did.

128

leo707 2011 Oct 12, 10:14am

Bap33 says

if the current way has all of the differences in wealth and concentrations that you wish to avoid, why would you want to just to more of the same thing?

I don't want more of the same. I want Clinton tax levels back. Or even better--1950s levels. You seem to run into problems when you assume what liberals want--maybe it's best you don't do that...

Yep, that is a "me too" for me. Not so much more of the same, just what we know has worked.

129

Patrick 2011 Oct 12, 10:34am

leoj707 says

Yep, I remember the first time a flat tax was described to me I thought that it sounded unfair. It has always been so strange to me that others call it the "fair tax". What is fair about a system that assures a majority of people will slowly be driven to poverty, while a few become kings?

That's a good argument for the land-value tax. I think it still may be true that the majority of wealth is land.

Taxing productive income derived from actual work inhibits work.

Taxing simple land-owner rent-seeking inhibits exploitation.

130 corntrollio 2011 Oct 12, 10:46am

I don't want more of the same. I want Clinton tax levels back. Or even better--1950s levels. You seem to run into problems when you assume what liberals want--maybe it's best you don't do that...

Yeah, at least Clinton levels would be useful -- that is basically the Obama plan. The 1950s levels wouldn't be bad, but are probably a bit aggressive. The 60s levels post-Kennedy are probably better. And broadening the tax base like Reagan did would probably be useful too to clean out the special interest handouts that Congress likes to dole out.

131 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 11:19am

Taxing productive income derived from actual work inhibits work.

That I agree.

Taxing simple land-owner rent-seeking inhibits exploitation.

How is rent-seeking based on land different from rent seeking based on money (i.e. interest income)? or dividend income from stocks? or license fee from Patents/Copyright? In fact, since it's been repeated over and over again on this very site that renting has lower monthly payment than buying . . . that means rent from housing (land plus structure) is lower than rent on money and rent owed to town (property tax). In other words, rent from housing is a negative economic rent; i.e. an economic subsidy to renters.

If you want less rent-seeking, the solution is not enabling more rent-seeking by government officials (collecting more property tax or land tax to give to their friends and families) but relaxing land use restrictions so that more vendors can provide housing service (both residential and commercial) to consumers.

132

marcus 2011 Oct 12, 11:25am

By the way, in my example I was referring to marginal rates. So that increase to 45% would only be on income above some level (not the entire 800K)

133 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 11:31am

Let me try with an example.

So in your example, if Couple A managed their lives frugally and can save $25k a year out of their $125k combined income (and invest wisely), whereas if Couple B had cancer and need very expensive pain killers or are just plain simple heroin addicts and have to blow $800k a year on drugs . . . you'd suggest we tax the lower income family more because Couple B would blow it all to allegedly stimulate the economy? No wonder our society is near-bankruptcy if we enshrine such spend-thriftiness in coercive laws.

134

marcus 2011 Oct 12, 11:48am

wtf ?

Thanks for reminding me to put you back on ignore.

Sadly, that gibberish might be just enough to prevent Bap from considering reality for more than a few seconds.

Hey, that's kind of ironic since the dbs name is Reality.

135 Reality 2011 Oct 12, 11:55am

wtf ?

Thanks for reminding me to put you back on ignore.

Sadly, that gibberish might be just enough to prevent Bap from considering reality for more than a few seconds.

Hey, that's kind of ironic since the dbs name is Reality.

Hey, don't blame me. You were the one coming up with the example, and justified higher taxation by:

(1) they wouldn't spend money as fast;

(2) they don't need the money.

I was merely applying your logic.

136

marcus 2011 Oct 12, 2:41pm

one nation
one vote
one tax
one God
one language
one culture

so ?
bs
bs
bs
bs

one love

137

Bap33 2011 Oct 12, 5:14pm

the FF were against gov taking from citizens to give to other citizens is what I said

corntrollio says

You are wrong

So, you now must read this:
One example is the general welfare clause in Article One, Section Eight, Clause One. This is where we are told that Congress has the authority to tax and spend for three purposes: one is for the common defense, two is to pay debts and three is to promote the general welfare. Now that is a grant of power, but it's also a limitation of power. Why did they say general welfare instead of just welfare? Because they meant it was not to tax and spend for the specific welfare of regions, individuals, or soci-economic groups.

and then read this, please:
http://gopcapitalist.tripod.com/constitution.html

138

tatupu70 2011 Oct 12, 9:26pm

Because they meant it was not to tax and spend for the specific welfare of regions, individuals, or soci-economic groups.

Any time you have to interpret what the FF meant, then your argument is worthless. I could just as easily write an essay saying they meant the exact opposite. That by general welfare, they meant that no groups should be forgotten. We should not become an aristocracy. Who's to say what they "meant"? They're dead and have been so for 200 years.

139

marcus 2011 Oct 12, 11:10pm

Jefferson believed the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4112936

We're probably lucky it's not seen that way though, because big money would probably control it.

140 david1 2011 Oct 12, 11:12pm

OTOH, in our kleptocracy, political coercive power is used by some to get rich, including your example of central bankers and their friends.

Kleptocracy...but you don't thnk increasing tax rates on the wealthy would be beneficial? What are were arguing here?

All I know is we have the greatest income stratification right now since before the great depression. We also have the worst economy since the great depression...the lowest top marginal tax rates since before the great depression...and all the while our economy continues to grow while tax receipts fall...these were things set in motion back in the 1960s and accelerated in the 80s. Why is it that back in the 1960s a family could exist in the middle class on one teachers salary? Single income families then were the norm but now a single income family that is prosperous is a rarity.

I am sort of done with this because your arguments are so disjointed I can't really even follow and don't want to argue 20 different things at once...we go from a specific argument about North Korea flight to China to now talking about the Soviets... Calling me a wannabe Fascist doesn't hurt my feelings because you don't really even know what a Fascist is..all you know is that is what the Nazis were and since Rush uses it on his radio show about anyone who thinks that higher taxes on the rich would actually help our economy you use it on me. Just because the Nazis were awful demons and terrible in most areas doesn't mean their ideas on economics were wrong. After all they did transform Weimar Germany (one of the worst economies in the world) to a global superpower that had the economic output to almost conquer all of Europe, Asia, and Africa nearly singlehandedly, and they did it in less than 20 years.

Read the 14 charateristics of Fascism and tell me if it sounds more like a progressive or conservative agenda in this country today.

You are so brainwashed - but it isn't your fault - the propoganda machine is good.

141

Bap33 2011 Oct 13, 12:20am

tatupu,
THat is not my quote, I found it on the web site from the guy who re-wrote the FP into today's lingo

At any rate, you think that when we have to interpret what the FF wrote, our argument is worthless?? Really? lmao. Ever hear of Davy Crockett? Care to read this?: http://givingupcontrol.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/davy-crockett-advises-the-candidates-%E2%80%9Cnot-yours-to-give%E2%80%9D/

I dunno, the Constitution was about 40 years old or so when that happened ... but, you're not into old papers from dead guys ... like John, for example, so never mind. lol

142 Reality 2011 Oct 13, 12:24am