And the rich get richer... by Niki2

Freedom is Important because People are Important

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:02 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello, This is not a new concept to me. Yeah, there's a pie, and a lot of people are subsisting on a very small slice of that pie.

To the point - I am starving/dying of thirst. There is food/water owned by my neighbor. I ask him for the water, but he's not interested in helping me.

Do I steal the food and water to survive?

Probably. For my own survival and that of my family, I might commit all manner of evil.

This is what you're describing to me.

You are starving/ dying of thirst. There is a man who has built a fence around a pond and refuses to let you drink. Will you drink anyway? Is it stealing?

I am describing not "buying into" a system of ethics which elevates ownership (the right to take by force) above human life, fairness, and dignity, and yes, I'm calling it good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:06 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

Tony, (edited frustration)...

seriously, the way you're laying this out, the colonials stole America from the british. Granted the british stole it from the indians, but the british had the rightful claim between the colonials and them. The british established colonies...the british funded voyages. They had every right to set up whatever laws they saw fit.

The difference of course is that we didn't have the right to vote, or to protect our own interests....but you are suggesting that it would be wrong for us to do so anyway...

on edit...

let me take a step back and ask you...as I think I have before but it may have gotten lost in the bulk of my posts, what is the better way? I am quite interested.

......

as to evil...even if you were to describe stealing some water so that your family could drink and survive as evil, which I find a little strange, but okay...wouldn't it still be the lesser evil? If somebody was going to let them die wouldn't that be the greater evil? if you were going to sit back and let them die because you didn't want to steal the water, wouldn't that be the greater evil?

Point taken about a person's finger...I hardly think it's the same thing though...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 9:47 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Point taken about a person's finger...I hardly think it's the same thing though..."

Hello,

It's the exact same thing. Losing your pinky will have a marginal impact on your quality of life. With sufficient medical technology, I may even be able to remove it painlessly. In a cold calculation, it is absolutely best for you to lose something that will impact you minimally in order for the greater number to benefit.

I consider personal property rights to be an extension of personal rights. Some people do not think there are personal property rights. They don't think you should be allowed to own something that someone else needs.

I understand the thinking behind this philosophy. It is a desire to help the greatest number of people. I am also not foolish enough to pretend that I wouldn't lie, cheat, steal, and kill in order to survive. But I wouldn't build a government based on that premise.

Someone is going to decide who is allowed to have what and how much they are allowed to have. Someone is going to decide the best distribution and allocation of resources. Whether that someone is a corporation or a government, that person is going to hose you. They're going to hose you hard.

I'm not interested in redefining who gets to hose me. So again, talking to me about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is talking to me about changing the villain.

Talk to me instead about equality and a fair deal that allows me as much freedom as possible. That includes the freedom to improve my situation to the best of my ability. That's the government I'm interested in. That's the law I want.

If Robin Hood is Step 1 on the road to Utopia, I'm going to have a hard time taking that step. I don't like to victimize people. I will literally have to be at the end of my rope, and I will not pretend, as I commit my crimes, that I am a good guy. It's too much a leap of hypocrisy for me to pretend that stealing is a good thing.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:37 PM

RIGHTEOUS9

What if that stealing were taking back waht belongs to others...

what if the system in place already failed?

it sounds like you are in favor of the state's rules, whatever those rules may be, or when you are not, the only way you suggest that they be changed is by...actually how do you suggest they be changed?

YOu brought up Robin Hood, so lets go with that a second. It sounds to me like rebellion and revolution would be revolting, ha ha, options to you, that they would be evil because they do harm to people who have stuff because rebellions take the stuff and the power from the people who have it and give it to somebody else. You aren't interstsed in how people got the shit in the first place, whether it was ill gotten, or whether it appears the game was rigged.

If we were in the star wars universe, you could not in good concience side with the rebellion, because the empire has all the stuff, and you wouldn't want to presume that they got all the stuff unethically, and even if they did, so be it.

Am I getting this right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Talk to me instead about equality and a fair deal that allows me as much freedom as possible. That includes the freedom to improve my situation to the best of my ability. That's the government I'm interested in. That's the law I want.

I'm with you, Anthony.

Here is another scenario to consider.

Quote:
There are five poor people who are about to die of hunger and thirst and lack of proper health care. Down the street comes a rich guy who never gives to charity. If you kill the rich guy, you can take his money and save the lives of the five poor people. Do you do it?

If you do kill the rich guy, is it a justifiable or moral decision? What justifies this homicide as possibly moral? It's one life for five? It's an emergency? The rich guy was probably guilty of something and deserved to die anyway?

Now consider another scenario.

Quote:
A guy is in a doctor's waiting room. He is as healthy as they come. In the same room are 5 people who are going to die that week from organ failure. It just happens that they all need different organs. If you kill the healthy guy, you can take his organs and save the lives of the five sick people. Do you do it?

If you do kill the healthy guy, is it a justifiable or moral decision? What justifies this homicide as possibly moral? It's one live for five? It's an emergency? The healthy guy was probably guilty of something and deserved to die anyway?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
What if that stealing were taking back waht belongs to others...

How do you decide when stealing is merely "stealing back what belongs to others" and is therefore morally acceptable?

I mean, how do you define the term, "stealing back what belongs to others"?

After all, everything you own now used to belong to someone else. The clothes you wear probably were either gifted by a friend or purchased from a vendor.

I assume then that gifting and trading are legitimate ways to transfer of ownership. That means your friend who gave them to you or the vendor that sold them to you aren't allowed to "steal back" what belongs to them.

What legitimizes the transfer of ownership and what doesn't?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
it sounds like you are in favor of the state's rules, whatever those rules may be, or when you are not, the only way you suggest that they be changed is by...actually how do you suggest they be changed?

If you were asking this of me, I would say, "Dismantle the rigged system that allowed them to obtain these riches in an unfair and dishonest manner."

What I wouldn't say is, "Leave the rigged system in place. Try to unrig the parts that allowed them to get rich AS WELL AS rig it some more so some of the riches get routed back to the people they stole them from."

Cause if they can rig the system once, they can rig it again. The problem can only be solved if the rigged system is completely dismantled.

If there is a government, someone will buy it. The only way to make the government purchase-proof is to make it so simple (and thereby transparent) and limited (and thereby powerless) that no one would WANT to buy it.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 5:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Income is income; they did nothing but put money into something which then profited them. No work involved, no “earning” of that money. Why should it be taxed at a lower bracket?

Capital gains tax rates were implemented to encourage investment. Folks who invest in the hope of getting capital gains can also lose their money, and many do. The lower rates are a recognition of that risk and an incentive to invest anyway, rather than just buy bonds or other safer stuff which reduces the flow of capital to entrepreneurs to develop and expand businesses.

Quote:
Can anyone tell us how much ACTUAL taxes the rich pay in proportion to what “individual income tax” they are supposed to pay? THEN you’d have an argument. As it is, hypothetically they pay more; in reality, how much/what percentage do they ACTUALLY pay?

The top 10% of earners(Around 14 million tax returns with AGI over $113,799 a year - for 2008), paid 69.94% of Federal income tax and had 45.77% of total income.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

So if you know a couple who are both making $80-90 grand a year, teaching school or running a small business, they're your fatcat enemies.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 6:25 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"YOu brought up Robin Hood, so lets go with that a second. It sounds to me like rebellion and revolution would be revolting, ha ha, options to you, that they would be evil because they do harm to people who have stuff because rebellions take the stuff and the power from the people who have it and give it to somebody else. You aren't interstsed in how people got the shit in the first place, whether it was ill gotten, or whether it appears the game was rigged.

If we were in the star wars universe, you could not in good concience side with the rebellion, because the empire has all the stuff, and you wouldn't want to presume that they got all the stuff unethically, and even if they did, so be it."

Hello,

Revolution and rebellion are indeed revolting options. Repugnant in the extreme. Every time I see Wulfenstar here, itching and praying and salivating for a revolution, I am dismayed.

If someone is trying to hurt me, I believe I have the right to defend myself. However, I will try everything I can think of that doesn't involve killing that someone FIRST. If I do have to kill someone, I'm not going to pop the champagne and have a party. I'm going to be very disturbed. No matter how justified I may be in defending myself, there is still a dead body with me as the cause of it. That's no reason to pat myself on the back.

By the same token, I might decide that a government is too far gone, too twisted and corrupt, to be further endured. I might someday decide that rebellion is the only option. The moment I take up arms, I know that indiscriminate murder is about to begin. Any future I cleave will be bathed in blood. Lives will be lost because I couldn't think of a better way.

Shifting from murder to theft is only a shifting of intensity, not responsibility. I still feel shame at the prospect of robbing someone. Of arbitrarily deciding that they don't deserve what they have, and so I'm going to take it. That anyone might do such a thing with a grin and a litany of moral justifications is a picture of horror to me.

Most ESPECIALLY if it's not the only choice left to them. ABSOLUTELY if they decided to steal first, before exploring all other options. What sorts of men would decide to do such things before trying everything else?

And so we return to the first. Talk to me about equality and fairness. Talk to me about something whose FIRST STEP is NOT STEALING.

In fact, Taxation in its current form is already theft, since it is not voluntary. So really all I'm asking is that you steal fairly.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 7:31 AM

RIGHTEOUS9

really fun topic, and if I engage on everything right now, I'm going to be late to my sister's house...

I will say that I agree with you on revolution, and mass outrage. I've discussed it here before that usually so many other people are harmed as scape-goats in such purges. The question was meant to see if there was a point where you would think it was neccessary. Apparently there is a point where you would think it is neccessary but never a point where you would think it was right. You have a very narrow definition of "right" and I can appreciate that.

We should maybe deal in terms of neccessity then. Canttakesky says that we should just unrig the system. I say Great fucking idea...but since the money runs the system, and we don't want a piece of that money, how do you propose to do that? How do you propose to get money out of politics, without first getting people who believe that into washington?

Also, I take serious issue, though I haven't adressed it yet, with us calling our tax codes "taking" somebody's money. This is a matter of framing, and not the way I see it, truly. I see it as a contract, as if an agency were fronting an individual's work with certain capital. The government does, in many ways.

The government provides the infrastructure with which somebody can succeed. I think it can have a rate that it charges for that privilige. If it wants 40 percent after the first 2 or 3 million, well those are the terms. It's not like these taxes are retroactive. We aren't going in and repossessing what people already have, though I AM absolutely in favor of the estate tax, but that's a different discussion.

I just don't understand how setting up the rules for how the game is played is theft. Its what you need to do in order to make a quality game.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:17 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The rich pay more than their fair share. A lot more.

Please provide proof that they actually PAY the amount they supposedly do, or your argument means nothing to me.

Quote:
That's not the proper function of government, to 'make things fair'.

Did I say that? I countered the consistent claim that they pay the vast majority of taxes by saying no, they have enough ways to get out of actually PAYING the percentage claimed they do that the statement is inaccurate. That being taxed less for something which wasn’t “earned” (capital gains) shouldn’t be any less than what one pays for earned income.

Anthony, at no time have I said (nor do I believe) we should “fuck them”. What I’m saying is that the argument is always used that the rich pay more taxes proportionately than everyone else. My argument is that no, they don’t, they have more ways available to avoid paying that percentage of taxes than everyone else. They should pay a decent percentage of their earnings, however they earn it. They do not.

One thing not mentioned when you talk about the rich paying for wars (and any number of other things) is that many of them also PROFIT from those wars. Another thing, which I mentioned before, is that they have the wealth to affect the government to get breaks and keep more of their money than the rest of us. In other words: They have unfair advantages. That’s what I disagree with.

Quote:
I'd say there are far MORE #'s of 'rich' these days than ever before

No, there are fewer “rich” people now than there ever were before, as the percentage of those making the most money has dropped steadily over time. In NUMBERS, there are more rich people than before, but as a PERCENTAGE of the population, there are fewer at the top.

Quote:
freedom to improve my situation to the best of my ability

There is a major problem with this. If one is born rich, one’s ability to get richer is more than someone who was born into the ghetto, for example. What doesn’t seem to be being taken into account is that some people have more OPPORTUNITIES to improve their situation than others do. That does come into the equation.

Quote:
rigged system that allowed them to obtain these riches in an unfair and dishonest manner

That’s what we have now (i.e., lobbyists, ability to invest, ability to buy favors, etc.). I’m not sure completely dismantling it (which isn’t feasible without revolution, in my opinion) is a valid solution, aside from the fact that if you start over, there will always be the ability for a system to be rigged. Is there any country you can point to in history where the system isn’t rigged in favor of the rich?

I just find it interesting that people are so convinced the rich are persectued and suffering. For me, it's a reflection in part of the mentality I believe exists in this country; that people want it so that "if THEY get rich..." when the vast majority of them never will.

When the minority of a society make an extremely large proportion of the money, while a majority of socity make make a small proportion, that society is in trouble. Thus it has been throughout history. Not only has it proven unhealthy for the society, it usually ends up in revolution. Are we any different in that respect?

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:17 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

The moment someone decides they don't want to pay taxes, those taxes become theft. Contracts are agreed upon by all parties, but there are many social contracts (including taxation) that all parties have not agreed to. The government uses my tax money for all kinds of things that are distasteful to me, and I don't have the option to say 'no.'

I tolerate things like tax because I believe it necessary for the functioning of society, but I would much prefer an entirely voluntary tax system. Such a system may not be possible, but I'd like to approach such a system as closely as possible. Barring that, I'd like to create a system that at least treats the maximum number of people with the maximum amount of equality.

The closest I am willing to come to a graduated tax system is one that forgives a portion of income entirely - the portion deemed 'the poverty line' where every penny is needed for survival. Once the survival threshold is reached, I want everyone to owe their equal share.

i.e. the first 25k of EVERYONE's income is tax-free. Hence the critically poor pay no taxes. But the rich also receive the first 25k tax free.

Obviously, the majority rules in this country, and my opinion may not be the majority opinion. That doesn't mean I have to advocate systems I don't believe in.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:34 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"What I’m saying is that the argument is always used that the rich pay more taxes proportionately than everyone else. My argument is that no, they don’t, they have more ways available to avoid paying that percentage of taxes than everyone else. They should pay a decent percentage of their earnings, however they earn it. They do not."

Hello,

I never hear about creating equal taxes, to fix the problem of loopholes, escapes, etc.

Instead of telling me that the rich should pay a 'decent' percentage of their earnings, try this:

"They should pay an equal percentage of their earnings."

And you'll have my vote!

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:37 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"For me, it's a reflection in part of the mentality I believe exists in this country; that people want it so that "if THEY get rich..." when the vast majority of them never will."

Hello,

What difference does it make if I will ever be rich? The sums of my hopes and dreams are immaterial to this debate. Ask me to levy a 40% tax on the poor, a 0% tax on the middle class, and a 10% tax on the rich, and I will squawk again. And not because I have dreams and aspirations of being poor.

It's just not equitable.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:43 AM

KANEMAN

Uconn does it again....cha ching.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 8:53 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anthony, in my opinion you are getting pretty hot in this debate, and responding rather than "hearing". I CLARIFIED a misperception about what I had said before; you respond with "give me equal taxes"; I voiced an OPINION on an attitude I perceive; you dismissed it as irrelevant and respsonded with something which had nothing to do with what I said.

This isn't like you. I'm not sure why, but you come across TO ME in this thread as if you're not hearing others or willing to do anything but justify your own point that everyone should have the "freedom" to keep what they have, no matter what. The fact that some have the opportunity to earn more than others, that perhaps a society should strive for more equality or even care about it's weaker members are all irrelevant. That is your opinion, it sounds like you're saying that's it, that's the only viable alternative, period, and nothing else is worth considering or even bringing up. JMHO.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:07 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I'm sorry if you feel I haven't been listening. I have.

You posited an opinion about why people might not want to tax the rich, and I responded with how I feel, which is in contrast to your opinion.

I am offering you my actual reasoning, from someone who doesn't agree with the policy, so that you don't have to speculate about motivations.

For me, taking from one person and giving to another person without consent is not a viable way to operate. It's why I don't shoplift, or advocate shoplifting.

"that perhaps a society should strive for more equality or even care about it's weaker members are all irrelevant."

I am asking, consistently, for a system that treats people equally, and you here posit that equality is irrelevant to me?

And if you think caring about the weaker members of society is irrelevant to me, I am staggered.

What I am hearing from the other side of the debate is that the only viable alternative is to take more from the wealthy. More. Not an equal amount. Not eliminate loopholes and escapes. But to make sure the wealthy pay a larger share of their income than everyone else.

I am rejecting an inequitable tax system.

I do not believe that empowering the weak means kneecapping the strong. I believe that we are all empowered when we are all treated equally. I believe that is what we should strive for.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
For me, taking from one person and giving to another person without consent is not a viable way to operate.

Tony, while I laud your ethics, you have a very unequal view of "ownership" and "taking".

One thing that you can take from a person is their time and their effort. How do you feel about taking away what someone else had made? That is exactly what profit does. It is no more fair than taking fruit from someone who tilled the soil, hoed the weeds, fertilized and watered the plants, and yet who did not "own" the land.

I know we have been through this before. You link ownership with either personal property or tools and resources that a person could use to make something. You have a very small-business view of ownership, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the world doesn't run like that. Ownership is now fully divorced from work; owners are now more often than not speculators and scam artists who have jiggered the system so they can get more and more, regardless of their input.

Quote:
I do not believe that empowering the weak means kneecapping the strong. I believe that we are all empowered when we are all treated equally. I believe that is what we should strive for.

By what rules?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 9:32 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Capital gains tax rates were implemented to encourage investment.

Unfortunately, it applies to speculation just as well. And hedge fund interest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I'm not sure why, but you come across TO ME in this thread as if you're not hearing others or willing to do anything but justify your own point that everyone should have the "freedom" to keep what they have, no matter what.

I believe you both are talking about two different things.

You are trying to address specific flaws in the tax system that allow the rich to weasel out of taxes they are supposed to pay.

He is trying to clarify the principles that guide his position on taxation general.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Just because he believes it is wrong to steal doesn't mean he is denying the existence of those flaws you are concerned about. He is not dismissing anything.

I believe he is simply saying, "Let's fix the root problem behind taxation rather than focus on minor problems like loopholes for the rich. Let's make taxation equitable."

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ownership is now fully divorced from work; owners are now more often than not speculators and scam artists who have jiggered the system so they can get more and more, regardless of their input.
Quote:
Anthony: I do not believe that empowering the weak means kneecapping the strong. I believe that we are all empowered when we are all treated equally. I believe that is what we should strive for.
SignyM: By what rules?

1. Take out the system they are jiggering.
2. De-legislate corporations. Get rid of corporate personhood.
3. Take out the IRS and replace it with a flat tax. Or use the Fair Tax. Whatever. Just make it simple, straightforward, and transparent.
4. Everyone follows the same rules in the new system. No jiggering allowed.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:41 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ownership is now fully divorced from work; owners are now more often than not speculators and scam artists who have jiggered the system so they can get more and more, regardless of their input.
Quote:
Anthony: I do not believe that empowering the weak means kneecapping the strong. I believe that we are all empowered when we are all treated equally. I believe that is what we should strive for.
SignyM: By what rules?

1. Take out the system they are jiggering.
2. De-legislate corporations. Get rid of corporate personhood.
3. Take out the IRS and replace it with a flat tax. Or use the Fair Tax. Whatever. Just make it simple, straightforward, and transparent.
4. Everyone follows the same rules in the new system. No jiggering allowed.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

Hello,

This strikes me as equitable.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:48 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Ownership is now fully divorced from work;"

Hello,

Here it seems that we are entering the topic of investment, and whether investment is fair and equitable.

I will confess that I know very little about investment, except from my point of view from working for a bank.

i.e. Giving you the money/resources you need to accomplish X, in return for X+Y money/resources.

Or do I misunderstand?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
How about because if we left Americans, in our current malaise of "self-reliance" and the tired notion of manifest destiny that hasn't really ever died, to do the "right thing", and put money into "good causes," most of us would fail to do so....

Are you saying that if YOU chose where to spent all your money, YOU would choose to give to "good causes," but other people won't? So one main reason for taxation is to force all the ungiving people out there who don't have your level of social conscientiousness to give to "good causes"?

Quote:
...and because government has more power to impact any given cause, with legislation.

If this were true, and you believe in the given cause, why not donate to the govt more of your money and thereby that much more power?

Quote:
I find Frem's plan interesting.

It would be a good step in the right direction. At least, all the unpopular things would get a reduction in budget. You can effectively boycott government policies you disagree with.

Which is why it would never happen. They would never allow citizens to actually affect policy directly like that.

I would donate taxes if I could have a say in where they went. As it stands, I'm just throwing my money into a big bottomless pit from which unscrupulous politicians and corporations help themselves. All in the name of "good causes," of course.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 2:51 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Are you saying that if YOU chose where to spent all your money, YOU would choose to give to "good causes," but other people won't? So one main reason for taxation is to force all the ungiving people out there who don't have your level of social conscientiousness to give to "good causes"

This demonstrates naivete about how the wealthy got wealthy. Do you suppose the wealthy got that way by doing the right thing?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 6:04 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"This demonstrates naivete about how the wealthy got wealthy. Do you suppose the wealthy got that way by doing the right thing?"

Hello,

Some did, some didn't. Being someone other than a divinity, I can't say more than that with certainty.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 6:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Tony, none of them did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 6:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony, none of them did.

Hello,

Well, if I believed that people were incapable of obtaining wealth through anything but sinister action, then I suppose we'd never have anything to argue about.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 25, 2010 7:51 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Please provide proof that they actually PAY the amount they supposedly do, or your argument means nothing to me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 2:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tony, none of them did.

Here in Peru, a large number of the population live in shacks with bamboo stick walls, a large piece of plastic for a roof, no bathroom of any sort, no running water, dirt floors, and one change of clothes. Try asking them if YOU are wealthy.

If they say yes, does it mean you've never done the right thing?

Wealth is a relative term. In the right context, it applies to YOU. And me. And most Americans.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Well, if I believed that people were incapable of obtaining wealth through anything but sinister action, then I suppose we'd never have anything to argue about.

It depends on how one defines "sinister action." Like I asked Righteous, how do you decide an action is sinister enough that one is justified to "steal back"?

Are any of us innocent of said "sinister action"? Define it, then we can talk about what is justified in response.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 2:15 AM

QUESTIONABLEQUESTIONALITY

Thanks for that link, Geezer. It is good to look at numbers instead of assumptions for a change.

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 2:40 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Quote:
The rich pay more than their fair share. A lot more.
Please provide proof that they actually PAY the amount they supposedly do, or your argument means nothing to me.

I'll cheat of Geezer's paper , for this one.

The top 10% of earners(Around 14 million tax returns with AGI over $113,799 a year - for 2008), paid 69.94% of Federal income tax and had 45.77% of total income.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 3:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Are you saying that if YOU chose where to spent all your money, YOU would choose to give to "good causes," but other people won't? So one main reason for taxation is to force all the ungiving people out there who don't have your level of social conscientiousness to give to "good causes"
This demonstrates naivete about how the wealthy got wealthy. Do you suppose the wealthy got that way by doing the right thing?

I love ignorant blanket statements. Let me guess, You think the wealthy got wealthy by doing the wrong thing? All of them? Most of them? Where do you get your data?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 4:06 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

To Leftists, anyone who gained anything more than they have, or think anyone ' should' be able to , did so by cheating. Because it's how they'd do it, if they were motivated by such things as success and money. But, because they aren't, and only want what's truly good for their fellow man, they believe anyone who stands out from the rest of us HAS to be benefiting from some unfair gain.

It's why they want kids to stop keeping score in games like soccer and baseball, or football....

" Just play, and have fun ! Don't worry about the score "

Quote:
Youth football: League bans Sedalia team from playoffs

October 22, 2010 11:40 PM
Seth Stringer
The Sedalia Democrat

The Sedalia Junior Outlaws wrapped up a perfect 6-0 season on Oct. 16 and were the odds-on favorites to a host the fifth-grade division West Central Youth Football League playoffs with the No. 1 seed attached.

A week later, the team sponsored by Chad Jackson and the Mid-Missouri Outlaws learned they won’t be included in the postseason mix.

The Junior Outlaws, which outscored opponents 171-0 on the year, accompanied by a running clock in each contest, were notified in the middle of the week by league commissioner Dave Callaway that teams would rather forfeit than play them.

“We received several e-mails from the league commissioner asking us if we’d consider not playing in the playoffs because it wouldn’t be competitive,” Sedalia coach Ben Lyles said. “He said that teams would rather forfeit than play us and that there would be no playoffs if we were involved.”

The competitive argument, though, holds no water for Lyles.

In a league that caters to divisions for second through seventh-graders, Lyles pointed out that multiple teams in the WCYFL league have finished the season undefeated and aren’t receiving the same treatment.

“There’s no consistency,” said Lyles, who pointed out that third-grade Grain Valley has also not allowed a point and is set to compete in the playoffs. “If you look at every other division, the team that won it went undefeated. If it’s about competitiveness, there’s at least four teams if not six or seven that are in the same boat as us. Rightfully so, you don’t see them being forced out.”

Callaway failed to comment on the inconsistencies or reasoning behind the exclusion.

Lyles believes the main reason is the false rumors swirling about Sedalia recruiting.

“There was a lot of discussion about our kids not being Sedalia kids,” Lyles said. “That’s totally not true. All of our kids are from Sedalia. We were given specific criteria to join this league ... and we’ve complied with every rule. These kids and the parents don’t deserve this. They earned that record following the same rules that every other team stuck to.”

Lyles said he has yet to hear back from the commissioner, but wants three things to take place.

“We want a refund of our entry fee. We want a note sent to every team in the league explaining the situation and that we did not forfeit, did not quit, did not back out,” Lyles said.

“The third thing is for our kids. We should be declared champs.”.

Oh, see ? They're named the " Outlaws ", so you just know they've done something illegal.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 4:47 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
To Leftists, anyone who gained anything more than they have, or think anyone ' should' be able to , did so by cheating. Because it's how they'd do it, if they were motivated by such things as success and money.

Because they were REALLY motivated by the milk of human kindness??? Eh, that must explain child labor, company towns, brutal killing of labor leaders, rapacious monopolies, and grinding poverty for the many and opulence for the vanishingly few.

Really, Rappy. Do you really expect us to believe such tripe?

I only derailed this conversation from Anthony's legitimate (albeit misdirected IMHO) ethical conundrum to poke at your post. Back to our regularly scheduled program.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 5:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

QQ: Where do I get my data? Well, many places, actually, including a psychological study of industry barons.

However, I think the real point has nothing to do with motivation. personality, or ethics and everything to do with cold hard business calculations.

Let's take a business owner who really DOES want to "do the right thing". She pays her employees to her business' ability to pay, charges market price, pays herself for whatever work she does and tries to keep a reserve but takes little or no profit. Meanwhile, she's competing against a business which pays slave wages to illegal immigrants and uses that advantage to charge slightly lower prices. That owner also uses his profit to expand, so business #2 gains greater and greater market share. As business #2 expands, it can use its market share to leverage #1 out of business by using multiple income streams to temporarily drop prices in specific areas below market value. Business #2 also uses its size to gain greater negotiating advantage with suppliers, consolidating its management structure and taking advantage of the efficiencies afforded to it by its greater size (economies of scale). If the businesses are publicly traded, owner #1 is in even more immediate deep shit. The values of her shares go down, and she can be accused of not doing her "fiduciary duty" (look it up) to her shareholders, and forced out of management by her shareholders.

The point is that no matter how well-meaning a business owner is, as long as businesses compete on the basis of profitability there will always be push to screw the employee and the consumer. Larger businesses will always have an advantage over smaller ones, leading to monopolies. And businesses with lots of money will be able to influence elections, and therefore the law, to their advantage. I have lots and lots of data. As I doubt that you even read through his post, posting data isn't going to do any good. In your case, asking for data is merely a rhetorical ploy and not a legitimate question, as you will simply not read it and think about whatever I post.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 5:39 AM

MAL4PREZ

I take a different stand than many here. I don't think it's about "punishing" anyone as much as it's about creating an economy that 1) works (!!!) and 2) meets the goals of the society.

I was under the impression that America is about opportunity and fairness and a decent living for all, rather than preserving a nearly medieval distribution of wealth and power. As I had hoped we learned from the Dark Ages, power and wealth concentrate themselves to the benefit of few and detriment of many. The main job of modern govt (in my view) is to stop that process. Prevent tyranny, allow the weak and the minority to exist without being trod upon.

But our govt has somehow become a protector of the powerful, rather than the weak. Beyond a doubt, govt policy of the past few decades has concentrated wealth amongst the few. This has been horrible for our economy as well as for our ideals. We are most certainly not the land of opportunity that we desperately try to see ourselves as.

Arguing that concentrating the wealth more will somehow lead to different results this time around, that giving the haves even more will magically result in job creation is not far short of insanity. You know, the definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Keep giving the wealthy more and expect something good to happen. Good luck with that. I'm astounded that anyone can argue this, when all we've had were breaks for the rich over the past few decades and it took us straight into the crash of 2008.

It's not about punishing anyone. It's about trying to prevent America's decline into a second rate, hypocritical, land of the not-at-all free. Serfdom redefined: instead of one lord in his castle profiting off his field workers, we have the Walmart CEO squeezing his fortune out of minimum wage workers. The only reason our serfs are better off than those of 1000 AD is that our govt put in standards like the minimum wage, medicare, etc

But those protections are being dismissed because the modern day serfs are blindly acting against their own good, defending their masters.

Our system is broken. Our economy badly needs more consumers and wealth through actual production, rather than blind faith in empty bubbles. Moving some of that wealth out the top 1% and into the bottom 50% is the first step.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 5:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Mal,

I agree that government has long been an enforcer of business interests. But I have not been arguing in favor of giving businesses more than they have.

I have been asking for a set of rules that treat people equally.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Let me guess, You think the wealthy got wealthy by doing the wrong thing? All of them? Most of them? Where do you get your data?

I don't see what JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books and a billionaire, did wrong except write a series of books that is very popular worldwide.

To all the wealth distribution advocates, I have a question.

I am very wealthy compared to many, many people I see here in Peru. By American standards, I live a modest lifestyle in a two bedroom townhome with a hot shower. By Peruvian standards, I am in the upper class, what with tile flooring, internet access in my own home, meat at every meal, and a full time nanny/housekeeper.

I give to charity. I pay my taxes. But since I am wealthy, I must be doing the wrong thing.

Should I cancel my internet, move my family into a one bedroom place with dirt floors and no hot showers, and give the money I save to those who are living in dire poverty?

Should you?

--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:03 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
QQ: Where do I get my data? Well, many places, actually, including a psychological study of industry barons.

However, I think the real point has nothing to do with motivation. personality, or ethics and everything to do with cold hard business calculations.

Let's take a business owner who really DOES want to "do the right thing". She pays her employees to her business' ability to pay, charges market price, pays herself for whatever work she does and tries to keep a reserve but takes little or no profit. Meanwhile, she's competing against a business which pays slave wages to illegal immigrants and uses that advantage to charge slightly lower prices. That owner also uses his profit to expand, so business #2 gains greater and greater market share. As business #2 expands, it can use its market share to leverage #1 out of business by using multiple income streams to temporarily drop prices in specific areas below market value. Business #2 also uses its size to gain greater negotiating advantage with suppliers, consolidating its management structure and taking advantage of the efficiencies afforded to it by its greater size (economies of scale). If the businesses are publicly traded, owner #1 is in even more immediate deep shit. The values of her shares go down, and she can be accused of not doing her "fiduciary duty" (look it up) to her shareholders, and forced out of management by her shareholders.

The point is that no matter how well-meaning a business owner is, as long as businesses compete on the basis of profitability there will always be push to screw the employee and the consumer. Larger businesses will always have an advantage over smaller ones, leading to monopolies. And businesses with lots of money will be able to influence elections, and therefore the law, to their advantage. I have lots and lots of data. As I doubt that you even read through his post, posting data isn't going to do any good. In your case, asking for data is merely a rhetorical ploy and not a legitimate question, as you will simply not read it and think about whatever I post.

Hello Signy,

Your premise suggests that the 'good' business owner and the businesses' employees are not interested in staying in business. In your example, they repeatedly make short-sighted decisions that cripple their ability to fare well in the marketplace.

However, I have heard repeatedly on these very forums about corporations that are successful and have the interests of their employees at the center of everything they do. Such corporations could not be held up in example to me if they were a myth.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have been asking for a set of rules that treat people equally.

How about this?- You get to keep what you have personally made.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:09 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I have been asking for a set of rules that treat people equally.
How about this?- You get to keep what you have personally made.

Hello,

Can I trade what I personally made for what someone else has made? And can we use money as a convenient way of representing these things (so that I can fit it in my pocket?)

And if you need to borrow money or equipment from me to get your stuff done, am I entitled to negotiate repayment from you?

And if I build half of a hotel with you, am I entitled to a portion of the hotel proceeds?

What if I hire ten workers to build a hotel, trading them whatever we mutually agree their labor is worth? Does the hotel belong to them, or to me?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have heard repeatedly on these very forums about corporations that are successful and have the interests of their employees at the center of everything they do.

I haven't found one. There are a few (fleeting) examples which Geezer brought up: Ben & Jerry's (bought out by Unilever), Burt's Bees (bought out by Clorox)... I really can't think of any, at least not any that lasted more than a couple of decades. And I can think of lots of examples in the opposite direction: Walmart, Microsoft, Apple, GE, Goldman Sachs, BofA, etc.

Maybe there are a few private companies that run like that, but they don't make up much market share. I think the logic of the marketplace is pretty implacable: expand or wither. That expansion necessarily has to take place by lowering costs as much as possible and screwing the consumer wherever possible. The follow on to that is that either they use automation (increase unemployment) or lower wages, and/or force you to use their product in a way that maximizes their profits (Have you been paying attention to the RIAA, EULAs, and DMCA?) or use shoddy/ dangerous materials or pollute the environment etc.

We've been through this before already in the early 1900s. Why do we have to repeat it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:16 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Hello,

Isn't this the seventh largest corporation in Spain?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Mondragon. It's a cooperative, not a corporation. It's not even capitalist. And it follows the premise that you get to keep what you make, in terms of controlling how it is made and sold and at what price.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Can I trade what I personally made for what someone else has made? And can we use money as a convenient way of representing these things (so that I can fit it in my pocket?)

And if you need to borrow money or equipment from me to get your stuff done, am I entitled to negotiate repayment from you?

And if I build half of a hotel with you, am I entitled to a portion of the hotel proceeds?

What if I hire ten workers to build a hotel, trading them whatever we mutually agree their labor is worth? Does the hotel belong to them, or to me?

This assumes that the negotiation is done from an equal basis of power. If all land is owned by a few large landowners, everyone else has to necessarily work for those few, and compete against each other for their space in production. So think of land as money. If most of the money is held by a few, everyone else has to compete with each other for access to that resource. The difference in power is so large that what happens isn't a negotiation, because one side has no power.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 26, 2010 6:26 AM