Ideology over reality by kpo

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh yeah.. Maggie Thatcher The Milk Snatcher.

When her popularity began to tank she started a war in the Falklands.

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

Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:47 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Yes, I see this kind of argument as becoming more prominent here as well. My well off friends complain that they pay more tax and get less services for their money. I don't have much sympathy for them or their views, which strike me as unbelievably self absorbed and obsessed.

Sure. It's un-enlightened, but it's a pretty natural reaction: I'm forced to pay this much in, so what do I get out of it? Conservatives have a point that there *is* a fundamental unfairness in the tax system - a lot of people pay in MORE than they get out. And a lot of people pay in LESS than they pay in. That's a fundamental unfairness. You can make enlightened arguments other types of fairness - like equality of opportunity, and income inequality (although is that last one unfair?), but conservatives will just keep hammering on about this one fundamental unfairness (as usual liberals are making cerebral arguments, and conservatives are making primal arguments).

So my approach is to directly counter the right-wing argument. To paint the picture of a world that meets the right-wing ideal of 'fairness'. Where people pay in similar to what they get out. Where taxes go up on the middle class 500-1000% and the rich pay so little as a proportion of what they earn, that they don't even feel it. What a wonderful world that would be! Let's move the tax code in that direction!

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:49 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do the rich have private planes?

If so, they're getting far more out of the airports than I am, since I do not fly and have no use at all for airports.

That's just me pointing out ONE instance where things aren't "fair" for me as a taxpayer who helped build the airport and gets nothing out of if.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

My system gives you a rebate.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 1:41 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:

Many wealthy people did earn it, but none of them earned it on there own.

I'm not sure about this point. If you're saying that their success wouldn't be possible without the society around them, then sure, but so what? We're talking about society providing *opportunity*, and then wealthy people taking that opportunity and becoming successful (Signy et al, I know this doesn't represent all of the rich, but let's talk about the enterprising, hard-working type of rich person for a moment). And because of that wealthy people have a duty to pay more? Why? They were provided with opportunity - but so were a lot of other people, who didn't become successful. In other words society has given the rich entrepeneur no more than it gave to many others. So why do they owe society more?

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 4:55 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, dear, so sad...people are actually trying to communicate with Rap, with facts and figures even. By now, who doesn't know...well, you know.
Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

So is this the "neener, neener" you don't do?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Niki2.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 5:34 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"We're talking about society providing *opportunity*, and then wealthy people taking that opportunity and becoming successful ..."

And what if that *opportunity* consists of getting rich by keeping other people poor? NOBODY gets rich working - ie producing. They get rich by having other people do their work for them - at a cut rate. And the more they cut the rates, the richer they get.

"... I know this doesn't represent all of the rich, but let's talk about the enterprising, hard-working type of rich person for a moment."

Do you know just HOW fantastically rare that is?

Research on American mobility published in 2006 and based on collecting data on the economic mobility of families across generations looked at the probability of reaching a particular income-distribution with regard to where their parents were ranked. The study found that 42 percent of those whose parents were in the bottom quintile ended up in the bottom quintile themselves, 23 percent of them ended in the second quintile, 19 percent in the middle quintile, 11 percent in the fourth quintile and 6 percent in the top quintile.[8] These data indicate the difficulty of upward intergenerational mobility. There is more intergenerational mobility in Australia, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Germany, Spain, France, and Canada than in th U.S. In fact, of affluent countries studied, only Britain and Italy have lower intergenerational mobility than the United States does (and they are basically even with the U.S.) We know less about the long-term mobility of the top 1 percent, but all indications are that people in this rarefied group usually don’t drop very far down the ladder.[9] WIKI

So, are you arguing that an entire society should pay in dire poverty on the one hand and vast inherited wealth on the other for the cost of a rare upward climb?

You sound like a Randroid - 'yanno, the world depends on the rich and powerful to run, otherwise it would all fall apart. I have news for you - it ran just fine without them all during human evolution and would run just fine without them in the future. So unless you are the rich and powerful who would truly benefit from the current system, maybe ya' need to wake up and smell the coffee - ya know?

Finally, if your country - or mine - were TRULY interested in the welfare of ALL its people, I don't think you'd be singing this tune. What you know WWWAaaaayyyy in the back of your head somewhere where you can't QUITE access it - is that this is a rigged game. The tax structure doesn't REALLY improve things for the average person. And if you saw actual benefits from the taxes, you'd be far more supportive.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 6:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Oh, dear, so sad...people are actually trying to communicate with Rap, with facts and figures even. By now, who doesn't know...well, you know.
Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

So is this the "neener, neener" you don't do?

Hypocrisy, thy name is Niki2.

Is it any more hypocritical than you calling others trolls?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 8:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KPO, I'm wondering what you think of my general comments on the purpose of economic policy.

As for this rare, hardworking up-from-nothing billionaire that you're talking about, it would be better to talk about specific people and specific instances. Because I echo KIKI's response: "Opportunity" to do WHAT?? If we examine specific instances of what specific people "did" in order to "make money", you will probably find that their money-making activity (1) was fully supported by government, and (2) that their specific actions did not actually produce much or materially advance society, that it was merely an opportunity to parasitize.

Again, I think you have not fully thought out the PURPOSE of the economic activities you intend to promote. As I said before, I have no interest in being "fair" just to be "fair". Similarly, I have no interest in promoting "equal opportunity" if all it does is reward economically meaningless or destructive activities.

So be specific as to what these "opportunities" are, and what you intend to promote with them.

Also, you CANNOT counter primal right-wing greed of the wealthy with any argument of fairness. If they cannot see that putting more into a society is what keeps THEM in place and alive in the long run, then they are useless pieces of mental lint and no amount of discussion or persuasion will move them when sheer self-interest will not.

And if you're talking about someone who is poor and right-wing, they're even more lost than the people who're actually getting something out of the system. Poor right-wingers are deluded. Even IMMEDIATE self-interest isn't enough to move them. They're lost. You can't help them.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 9:28 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
It depends on what you mean by "anarchy" and the conditions under which it comes about.

I mean if the government were to dissolve tomorrow. Rich people would remain, and many of them would do very well in the new circumstances, especially the less humane/society conscious.

Quote:
The most anarchic society that can be found archeologically - no ramparts, walls, armories, temples, gods or palaces or any trappings of "archy" of any sort- was also the most equal.

I expect most all societies start out that way. But it seems that at some point, for some reason (perhaps the advent of new technology, or other reasons), wealth and power concentrates into the hands of a few. Certainly that's the story of most of recorded history. Government stops this happening (or slows it), and so in this regard government is not the greedy rich man's friend.

Quote:
As for this rare, hardworking up-from-nothing billionaire

Let's drop the idea of the guy being super-rich - I never said that he was, and it seems to touch a nerve with you and Kiki. And the truth is my argument works just as well for only the relatively prosperous man who has bettered himself so that he now pays higher than average taxes - he needn't be a billionaire, or even a millionaire. And no, that's not rare; several of my friends have done it, and Kiki pointed out that Britain has comparable mobility to the US. Do my successful friends 'owe' more to society than I do? Must society have given them more, in the form of opportunity?

Quote:
Also, you CANNOT counter primal right-wing greed of the wealthy with any argument of fairness. If they cannot see that putting more into a society is what keeps THEM in place and alive in the long run

I'm not convinced this is the case. As I say, government dissolves and many of them do better. Rich factory owners can pollute more, and pay their workers less, etc. True, modern society collapses around them, but they retreat to their castles and no longer have any dealings with the rabble.

Quote:
And if you're talking about someone who is poor and right-wing, they're even more lost than the people who're actually getting something out of the system. Poor right-wingers are deluded. Even IMMEDIATE self-interest isn't enough to move them. They're lost. You can't help them.

What about people in the middle? People not in line for wealthy tax cuts, but who believe in them ideologically?

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 9:35 AM

NIKI2

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

1. Clinton reduced the rate of growth of the debt. To say he didn't raise the debt at all is arguing semantics and avoiding the point.

2. Those on the right consistently and constantly refuse to recognize that it takes MONEY to dig us out of incredible fucking holes which might well bankrupt the country if money wasn't spent to dig out of them. Until and unless an HONST effort is made to compare the situation with regard to that, AND to calculate how anyone--Republican or Democrat--could have gotten us out of the worst recession since the Depression without increasing the debt...substantially...there can be no rational debate.

3. Until and unless people are willing to debate on the fact that the wars weren't "on the books", again, no rational debate can take place.

4. Public debt as a percentage of GDP fell rapidly in the post-World War II period, and reached a low in 1973 under President Richard Nixon. The debt burden has consistently increased since then, except during the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. So apparently the only way to fix the GDP is to have another war. Goodie; let's do it, then we can point to whoever is in office and say "but he lowered the debt".

5. Economist Mike Kimel notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness. Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong, former Clinton Treasury Department official, observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt). Wiki I totally agree about the "new-style Republicans"; things have changed dramatically in my opinion when it comes to running up the debt, and Republicans USED to have a more reasonable attitude toward it.

I agree with Nick:

Quote:
I see taxes as a person's contribution to society as a whole. It has been said that no man is an island. I believe this. The wealth have gotten more from society. Even when it has been through there own hard work the money they have gotten has come from other, from society.

The last line leaves me confused however: "So I see little reason they should pay more back in than someone who has not received as much." That seems to argue the reverse of what the rest of the paragraph says; could you expound on that, please?

Quote:
Government doesn't make people rich. The rich make themselves rich; government's job is to create conditions where that success is possible.

But in reality, rich people have more power to make the laws--ergo the taxes--causing the government to create conditions where INORDINATE wealth is possible. Nobody seems to be debating about this fact: that our government, as it exists now, has created an extremely unequal ability to increase wealth, once a moderate amount is obtained. What it says on paper that people's tax rates SHOULD BE relates very little into what people ACTUALLY PAY, when all things (like sales tax, loopholes, subsidies, etc.) are taken into account.

Damn, I might as well shut up and just say "What Magons said", or I'd be quoting her endlessly.

Quote:
Where taxes go up on the middle class 500-1000% and the rich pay so little as a proportion of what they earn, that they don't even feel it. What a wonderful world that would be! Let's move the tax code in that direction!

Uhhh, isn't that the way we're heading right now? And have been exponentially for quite some time?

Quote:
They were provided with opportunity - but so were a lot of other people, who didn't become successful. In other words society has given the rich entrepeneur no more than it gave to many others. So why do they owe society more?

I call bullshit on that one! No, EVERYONE but rich people is provided less opportunities than they are, that anyone can think that boggles the mind. You're essentially saying that someone from a single-parent household in a poor neighborhood with multiple siblings whose parent works three jobs and who goes to through a lower-class education system (IF they can even survive--or even envision surviving--to beyond their teens!) is given the same opportunities as the middle-class person born into a two-parent household in a suburban neighborhood. Seriously?!?! Wow. Not to mention that if you start out inheriting wealth, your "opportunities" so far outweigh those of virtually everyone outside your class that it's not even worth debating...

Then there's, again, the point that the rich person has all kinds of tax laws, loopholes, subsidies...ach, I don't know why I'm wasting my time. This argument has been had how many times before? with the same arguments on either side, without changing anyone's mind. I'll just add: What happened to "provide for the general welfare" in all this?

Oh, for Kriste's sake, Geezer, get a grip! You came all the way into this thread to pull something from another thread? I explained it before, I'll do it one more time: Nowhere did I call anyone any names or become vicious to anyone. I expressed my own frustration, which is shared by MANY on this board. Get real...no, wait, don't...go right on spending your time focusing on me; it doesn't bother me in the slightest and it keeps you away from more valid debates. Keep it up, please!

One thing it does show us all is that you see no difference between snarking, expressing frustration, and deliberately, viciously going after someone by calling them names and impugning their very humanity. Keep reminding us of that, too, please.

Quote:
Is it any more hypocritical than you calling others trolls?

It's less, Mike...I called nobody any names. Actually, it's not even hypocritical, as I've said CLEARLY that I won't avoid snarking, I simply will TRY to avoid name-calling, flame wars and viciousness. Was what I wrote vicious? Not to mention that what I stated in that post is qualified with "seem to", "it's like", etc., except for the first paragraph, and hey, please point out where I said anything untrue--anything that hasn't been illustrated time and time again, in all the time I've been here?

Keep holding me to standards to which you aren't holding others, Geezer; at the very least I've said I'd TRY...howz about you? Don't be calling the kettle black when you choose to go on acting like a blackened pot. Or do, it's of no importance to anyone but you.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 9:45 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Uhhh, isn't that the way we're heading right now? And have been exponentially for quite some time?

That's why this is a big election, imo.

Quote:
You're essentially saying that someone from a single-parent household in a poor neighborhood with multiple siblings whose parent works three jobs and who goes to through a lower-class education system (IF they can even survive--or even envision surviving--to beyond their teens!) is given the same opportunities as the middle-class person born into a two-parent household in a suburban neighborhood. Seriously?!?!

No:

In other words society has given the rich entrepeneur no more than it gave to many others.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 9:49 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Oh, for Kriste's sake, Geezer, get a grip!

Give Geezer a break, he's been waiting with that quote from your sig to catch you out. He just got a bit over-excited and pounced on something innocuous.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 11:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I expect most all societies start out that way. But it seems that at some point, for some reason (perhaps the advent of new technology, or other reasons), wealth and power concentrates into the hands of a few. Certainly that's the story of most of recorded history. Government stops this happening (or slows it), and so in this regard government is not the greedy rich man's friend.

The feature that makes this rather cryptic society (Mohenjo-Daro) unusual was that not only was it the largest of its time, it was also the most technologically advanced- with sewage systems and advanced irrigation; it was prosperous (as judged by agricultural surplus and granary size) with a large trade; and rebuilt to spec many times after serious flooding. But in terms of social development, it is the exception rather than the rule.

Quote:
Government stops this happening (or slows it), and so in this regard government is not the greedy rich man's friend.

Do you have any examples of government being the friend of poor people?

Quote:
Let's drop the idea of the guy being super-rich - I never said that he was, and it seems to touch a nerve with you and Kiki. And the truth is my argument works just as well for only the relatively prosperous man who has bettered himself so that he now pays higher than average taxes - he needn't be a billionaire, or even a millionaire

I bring it up because it's exactly the super-wealthy who (1) are controlling the show and (2) could not possibly have done anything of value to "earn" that wealth. The moderately wealthy probably DID work hard. But they're not the ones who would benefit from a tax cut on the super-wealthy.

Quote:
I'm not convinced this is the case. As I say, government dissolves and many of them do better. Rich factory owners can pollute more, and pay their workers less, etc. True, modern society collapses around them, but they retreat to their castles and no longer have any dealings with the rabble.

Well, I guess this is a little like survivalist fantasies, but with money. When Dangy and Rearden go off to found their new society. Good riddance- I wish they would.

If there is a real collapse, the rich will do well until tantalum (from Africa) is no longer available for capacitors, lithium (from China) no longer available for batteries, that special IC plastic no longer available from Japan. Upon such little things the world turns.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 11:37 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Sorry Signy, forgot to answer this:

Quote:
Again, I think you have not fully thought out the PURPOSE of the economic activities you intend to promote. As I said before, I have no interest in being "fair" just to be "fair". Similarly, I have no interest in promoting "equal opportunity" if all it does is reward economically meaningless or destructive activities.

So be specific as to what these "opportunities" are, and what you intend to promote with them.

My views on the point of economic policy are pretty conventional. I'm pro-free markets and pro-business (and pro regulation of both). I think economic growth covers over a multitude of sins. I'm pro equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome. I don't begrudge the rich their wealth (even if they inherited it), so long as they don't use it to meddle with the political system. However I'm for a progressive tax code because equality of opportunity is not a reality. I want the rich to shoulder more of the tax burden because it's the best thing for society, and because they can afford to (certainly at the moment). But I don't think they 'owe' society for their success. High taxes for them is just part of the deal of living in a society where they had the ability to succeed, and it preserves that opportunity for the next generation.

I don't know if much of that answers your question. Basically my philosophy is all about maximising human happiness, and things like prosperity are a means to that end.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 12:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I see we x-posted.

You misunderstand my question. I didn't ask you WHAT you were for, but WHY. So WHY are you "pro free market" and "pro-business"? What do free markets and business "do" that is positive? If your answer is "economic growth", the question is "What does economic growth do?" that is positive?

OK, more xposting.

You're for maximizing happiness. For a few? Most? All?

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 12:03 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:

Many wealthy people did earn it, but none of them earned it on there own.

I'm not sure about this point. If you're saying that their success wouldn't be possible without the society around them, then sure, but so what? We're talking about society providing *opportunity*, and then wealthy people taking that opportunity and becoming successful (Signy et al, I know this doesn't represent all of the rich, but let's talk about the enterprising, hard-working type of rich person for a moment). And because of that wealthy people have a duty to pay more? Why? They were provided with opportunity - but so were a lot of other people, who didn't become successful. In other words society has given the rich entrepeneur no more than it gave to many others. So why do they owe society more?

It's not personal. It's just war.

yes but it is more than that. The wealthy have power and they use the power to ensure that their wealth grows at every opportunity. It's not a level playing field, the system favours the wealthy and the poor struggle to make ends meet, let alone become wealthy.

I think you've been fed a lot of bunk in your American ideology. That you obtain wealth due to your own wonderful entrepreneurial spirit, and that poor people are too stupid to be rich. It just not the full picture and not even half true.

In any event, I don't think that the wealthy should pay more taxes because they owe society (unless of course, their wealth is mineral in nature - give something back Gina Rhinehart) but because it makes sense. A higher tax rate on the wealthy impacts them less, it does not prevent them from owning and accruing wealth. A lower tax rate or tax breaks for the lower income enables them to have a chance to get ahead at least. And in the end, the government raises more much needed revenue. And lets face it, USA, you need revenue. You cannot get rid of that deficit by cuts alone,

It's the rich that bang on about fairness in the tax system, but why should fairness kick in when it comes to tax time when there is no fairness in the system to begin with. It isn't a fair system. It's a system steeped in a massively unequal distribution of resources and power and a system that enables that inequality to continue and to grow.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 12:09 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Do you have any examples of government being the friend of poor people?

Poor people specifically? A progressive tax code, unemployment benefit, public education, Medicaid, so on and so forth...

Quote:
I bring it up because it's exactly the super-wealthy who (1) are controlling the show and (2) could not possibly have done anything of value to "earn" that wealth.

Either you have your own definition of what constitutes 'value', or you're bending facts and reality to fit your ideology (it felt like I was debating Auraptor when I read that). You really think the super-wealthy couldn't have done anything of value to acquire their wealth?

Quote:
The moderately wealthy probably DID work hard. But they're not the ones who would benefit from a tax cut on the super-wealthy.

But we moved on to talking about what was 'fair', and my point about some people who pay above the odds in their taxes still applies to the moderately wealthy. If you earn a high six figure salary you would be better off under my 'fair' tax plan. However if you don't earn a six figure salary you'll be crushed. Seriously - you'll starve to death.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 12:36 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Poor people specifically? A progressive tax code, unemployment benefit, public education, Medicaid, so on and so forth...

Do you have examples of a government being friend to poor people primarily? Because (if you look at actual expenditures) our current government spends more on the wealthy than the poor.

Quote:
You really think the super-wealthy couldn't have done anything of value to acquire their wealth?

Yes, I do. If I may analogize to the biological world, let's look at cancer, or viruses, or parasites. None of these forms could survive or reproduce without a host, and none of them actually ADD to the host's health or survival. So by analogy, it's entirely "possible" that the super-wealthy are nothing but parasites who've managed to latch onto the carotid of commerce. Once we agree that is is "possible" that the super wealthy are nothing more than parasites we can discuss their real affect on the host economy in an unprejudiced (ie not "pre-judged") manner.

Then you can tell me... by way of real-life billionaires, for example... what is is that they bring to our collective table, if anything. Or we could imagine what the economy would behave like without them.

Quote:
But we moved on to talking about what was 'fair', and my point about some people who pay above the odds in their taxes still applies to the moderately wealthy. If you earn a high six figure salary you would be better off under my 'fair' tax plan. However if you don't earn a six figure salary you'll be crushed. Seriously - you'll starve to death.

I'm not understanding your point here. That seems like a powerful disincentive for anyone making less than six figures.... which is about 85% of the US population... to support your fair plan. Why are you looking for support from 15%?

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 7:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KPO- I hope the pause is either that you're busy or that you're thinking, but that you'll come back to this discussion later.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 7:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"As I say, government dissolves and many of them do better. Rich factory owners can pollute more, and pay their workers less, etc. True, modern society collapses around them, but they retreat to their castles and no longer have any dealings with the rabble."

I'm still trying to figure out why this is a goal to strive for.

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

Monday, November 5, 2012 11:53 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I'm not understanding your point here. That seems like a powerful disincentive for anyone making less than six figures

Haha, indeed. As I said, I'm not actually advocating this plan, just pointing out that it's the logical conclusion of the right wing ideal of tax 'fairness'. When rappy says, "That's not fair", with regard to the rich shouldering so much of the tax burden, I think it's illustrative to see what 'fair' would look like. I shouldn't have said that 85% would starve - I guess they'd qualify for food stamps or whatever. But the government would take everything they earn, that's the point. Or maybe if they couldn't meet the tax bill they'd be forced to become outcasts... The point is it's not pretty.

Quote:
Because (if you look at actual expenditures) our current government spends more on the wealthy than the poor.

Are you including tax breaks or something? I keep hearing statistics like the top 20% pay 70% of the total tax burden. Are you claiming that *more* than 70% of that revenue then gets spent back on them?

Quote:
Once we agree that is is "possible" that the super wealthy are nothing more than parasites we can discuss their real affect on the host economy in an unprejudiced (ie not "pre-judged") manner.

That's a strange statement, for a couple of reasons. Once we agree? All you've done so far is explain your worldview by way of analogy. In theory, and in the world around me, I see nothing inherently parasitic about people becoming successful. If I was to become a successful entrepeneur or a multi-millionaire writer, would that make me a parasite just by virtue of my success?

Quote:
Then you can tell me... by way of real-life billionaires, for example... what is is that they bring to our collective table, if anything. Or we could imagine what the economy would behave like without them.

I'm not really interested in planning a future without rich people. I'm still not convinced about the need for their overthrow. The happiest, healthiest, most harmonious societies in the world are ones that allow free markets, and individual prosperity, but then tax those successful folk highly. And even better, we can achieve that by evolution (of the tax code), not revolution. Revolution is overrated.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2012 12:18 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"As I say, government dissolves and many of them do better. Rich factory owners can pollute more, and pay their workers less, etc. True, modern society collapses around them, but they retreat to their castles and no longer have any dealings with the rabble."

I'm still trying to figure out why this is a goal to strive for.

'

You, my lady, play too much videogames. :)

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." ~Shepherd Book

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

Tuesday, November 6, 2012 5:36 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
The wealthy have power and they use the power to ensure that their wealth grows at every opportunity. It's not a level playing field, the system favours the wealthy and the poor struggle to make ends meet, let alone become wealthy.

I agree with that, but I would argue that those unfairnesses happen absent of government action. In other words laissez-faire government policy allows a world that's not fair. Whereas the unfairness conservatives complain about(making some pay more for the same services) is direct government policy, so easier to criticise. I think those born wealthy will always have an edge in terms of opportunity, but I think the standard of public education and the health and prosperity of society should be such that a talented, driven kid has every chance to succeed.

Quote:
In any event, I don't think that the wealthy should pay more taxes because they owe society (unless of course, their wealth is mineral in nature - give something back Gina Rhinehart) but because it makes sense. A higher tax rate on the wealthy impacts them less, it does not prevent them from owning and accruing wealth. A lower tax rate or tax breaks for the lower income enables them to have a chance to get ahead at least. And in the end, the government raises more much needed revenue. And lets face it, USA, you need revenue. You cannot get rid of that deficit by cuts alone.

I agree with all of that, apart from the bit about me being American. I'm a Brit.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 7:23 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Some more reality: CBO analysis of how much tax-cuts help the economy (and cost):

It's an excellent chart, once you take a second to understand it. On the right is the boost each policy gives to the economy. On the left is how much they cost to the deficit. Letting upper-income tax cuts expire seems like a no-brainer.

Also, look at the Keynesian effect of defense spending!

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 9:28 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Haha, indeed. As I said, I'm not actually advocating this plan, just pointing out that it's the logical conclusion of the right wing ideal of tax 'fairness'. When rappy says, "That's not fair", with regard to the rich shouldering so much of the tax burden, I think it's illustrative to see what 'fair' would look like. I shouldn't have said that 85% would starve - I guess they'd qualify for food stamps or whatever. But the government would take everything they earn, that's the point. Or maybe if they couldn't meet the tax bill they'd be forced to become outcasts... The point is it's not pretty.

I guess it's a little hard to differentiate between where you're advocating and where you're analyzing. The right wing here has actually advocated a "flat tax"... constant percentage... as being "fair", and eliminating everything envisioned as "welfare". You're taking that point quite a bit further. In whichever schema, we would both agree that it would be brutal on everyone who is not wealthy.

Quote:
Are you including tax breaks or something? I keep hearing statistics like the top 20% pay 70% of the total tax burden. Are you claiming that *more* than 70% of that revenue then gets spent back on them?

I count the military budget and nearly all internal security as being spent for the wealthy. That puts it pretty close right there. Factor in that the wealthy use more of the more expensive services, and I think that would figure to money taxed = money spent. That doesn't count the fact that roads, sewage, lights, other infrastructure, and a healthy, educated population support a robust economy, of which the wealthy take a disproportionate share. Now, if you start figuring tax breaks, the needle DEFINITELY swings over the break-even point towards the wealthy and corporations, since - as a percentage of straight income - the middle class pays far, far more than either corporations (taxed on net income only) or wealthy individuals (taxed at lower rates on investment income).

Quote:
That's a strange statement, for a couple of reasons. Once we agree? All you've done so far is explain your worldview by way of analogy. In theory, and in the world around me, I see nothing inherently parasitic about people becoming successful.

I didn't ask you to agree that the wealthy were parasites, just admit to the possibility that they might be.

Quote:
If I was to become a successful entrepeneur or a multi-millionaire writer, would that make me a parasite just by virtue of my success?

It depends. How much of the services that you received did you pay for? And by "services" I don't mean "What you got individually", I mean "What you took advantage of by virtue of being in a society, without which your success would not have been possible?" For example, as a multi-million dollar writer, you DO depend on a public that can read as your market, do you not? So, for every reader, how much did you pay for their education? What did YOU kick in to society that was worth the money that you gathered?

Quote:
I'm not really interested in planning a future without rich people. I'm still not convinced about the need for their overthrow. The happiest, healthiest, most harmonious societies in the world are ones that allow free markets, and individual prosperity, but then tax those successful folk highly. And even better, we can achieve that by evolution (of the tax code), not revolution. Revolution is overrated.

Did I say anything about revolution?

I feel like we're not communicating- there is some major disconnect between our assumptions. I hope that by being nit-pickingly step-by-step about what it is that we're saying, we can at least figure out where it is that we don't agree.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 9:48 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I'm struggling to understand your POV as well, KPO. Are you being ironic in some of your assertions?

Oh the joy of trying to interpret written communication.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 11:50 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I guess it's a little hard to differentiate between where you're advocating and where you're analyzing.

Let me help a bit: when I argue that something is 'fair', I'm not necessarily advocating it. In fact I'm pointing out that what's 'fair' (according to the right-wing definition, and yes they have a point) is the end of society as we know it. But no I'm not being ironic here; the two simply aren't mutually exclusive. On the contrary: unfairness of a certain kind (taking much more money off some than others for the same amount of services) is the only way the system can work.

Quote:
The right wing here has actually advocated a "flat tax"... constant percentage... as being "fair", and eliminating everything envisioned as "welfare". You're taking that point quite a bit further.

I'm taking it to its logical conclusion (btw I'm not talking about changing welfare at all, just changing the tax code). A flat tax rate is NOT fair. It's just mathematically simple. You're still taking so much more off the rich than everyone else. You're still redistributing. You can see that right?

Quote:
I count the military budget and nearly all internal security as being spent for the wealthy.

Ok but at this point you lose everyone who isn't already on the far left. You can't move me with arguments that rely on a hard left understanding of the world. I'm not being stubborn, just telling you how it is.

Quote:
Now, if you start figuring tax breaks

You shouldn't factor in tax breaks, even if you do count them as 'spending'. We're talking about how much of total tax revenue gets spent back on the rich. Tax breaks by definition don't feature in the total tax revenue - they're money that was never contributed to the tax purse in the first place. They have no place in this equation.

Quote:
I didn't ask you to agree that the wealthy were parasites, just admit to the possibility that they might be.

But I don't admit to that possibility. I think it's nonsense. However let's bypass that point - that's the best I can do.

For example, as a multi-million dollar writer, you DO depend on a public that can read as your market, do you not? So, for every reader, how much did you pay for their education? What did YOU kick in to society that was worth the money that you gathered?

Not nearly as much as I got out, it would seem. So why do you say "it depends"? It seems perfectly straightforward to me that I'm a parasite! But so long as I don't succeed I'm not one? Ok, harsh but fair. Now the only solution seems to be for society to take back all the money I earned. But not through revolution - a 100% upper-income tax bracket? Ok. Then what does government do with all the extra tax revenue? And are you sure this system is sustainable? Mightn't you, as Margaret Thatcher suggested, run out of rich people to tax?

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 11:57 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"But so long as I don't succeed I'm not one?"

As long as you get out more than what you put in. It's relative, whether rich or poor.

"Mightn't you, as Margaret Thatcher suggested, run out of rich people to tax?"

That would be an interesting experiment. The we could see whether or not the rich really do contribute more or less than they take.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 12:38 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
As long as you get out more than what you put in. It's relative, whether rich or poor.

Hmm, there's two ways I can interpret this. Let's try the first one. What I get out of society is constant... It's everything society has invested in me from infancy to now, in terms of education, emergency services, infrastructure, etc. How is this relative to how much I earn?

If I become rich I've taken out more because... all that money came from society?

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 12:50 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

As, has been pointed out in a few places, what people get out of society is not equal. Some get way better health care, education, housing, opportunities, and use of infrastructure. Some get way more out of the social compact that keeps us from violently ripping from others what we wish to have. Some get far, far less.

But if you were to do an accounting of each person's life - the benefits they got and the contributions they made - you'd have a positive or a negative balance. Depending on which way and how far the balance swings, you'd have your answer.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 1:03 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
As, has been pointed out in a few places, what people get out of society is not equal.

Yep. You're dodging the question. I've talked about my friends who have gone on to out-earn me. Did they get more out of society than me, even though we grew up in the same neighbourhoods, and went to the same schools? I've talked about hypothetically becoming a millionaire writer. Does what I took out of society change based on my success?

Is it me or do you lump the rich into one big 'privileged' group, and lump the poor into one big 'dis-advantaged' group? If not, explain.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 1:19 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Sorry, I thought I was answering what you asked.

Let me rephrase your question as I now understand it -

By point of time X I got a certain amount of benefit from society. Then through my actions I changed the equation and got a whole lot more. How much of the additional benefit am I entitled to as earned and how much is parasitic?

If that's the question my answer would be this: how much of that additional benefit was due to an actual contribution you made to society, which would be earned; and how much was in excess of any contribution you made, which would be parasitic.

It does default to my original equation which is to take an individual's life, compare benefits from society and contributions to society, and determine the balance - with a time-offset added in.

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 2:18 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KPO, I think one of the basic misunderstandings is that you think of society as an environment. It's just there, and people live and strive and succeed in it to a greater or lesser degree, whereas I see society as a very artificial environment, one which is maintained by the efforts and contributions of its members.

AFA rich people being parasites: What of the wealthy child who inherits mommy's or daddy's wealth, but doesn't work a single day in his/her entire life?

Rich + non-working = parasite?

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 2:33 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I wonder if 'opportunity' is the wrong word to use.

If we're trying to address a capitalistic mindset (one I hold right alongside my desire to help people), then perhaps capitalistic terminology is best.

If we see government as a business investing in the members of its society, then we can understand the desire of that business to recoup on its investment whenever that investment bears fruit.

A cut of the profits allows the business to continue making investments. Not every investment pays off. Some of the people invested in will not gain a positive return to government. Some of the investment will be lost. However, when one of the investments is successful, the investor has every right to expect their due cut, which allows the business to continue operating and growing and making new investments.

This is how capitalism works, is it not? And government?

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

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

Friday, November 9, 2012 3:33 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Sorry, I thought I was answering what you asked.

Let me rephrase your question as I now understand it -

By point of time X I got a certain amount of benefit from society. Then through my actions I changed the equation and got a whole lot more. How much of the additional benefit am I entitled to as earned and how much is parasitic?

If that's the question my answer would be this: how much of that additional benefit was due to an actual contribution you made to society, which would be earned; and how much was in excess of any contribution you made, which would be parasitic.

It does default to my original equation which is to take an individual's life, compare benefits from society and contributions to society, and determine the balance - with a time-offset added in.

Yeah, I think I feel the same way.

There is a meme that the wealthy benefit society because their wealth creates wealth. Maybe, but that wealth isn't evenly distributed. As you can see in many countries, you can have very, very wealthy people and a hell of a lot of poor.

In addition, wealth can be created in a whole host of ways that actually impacts negatively on society. It might be generated by a high poluting industry, by products that endanger people's health, by the productions of weapons designed to kill and maim. There are a lot of morally reprehensible wealth generating industries out there.

Wealth in itself is neither good nor bad, it just is what it is.

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

Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:06 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KPO- the more you write, the less I understand. There is a major disconnect going on. Plus, you never did answer my question about whether the inherited, non-working wealthy are parasites. It would help me a great deal if you would address that question, since that would help me understand what you consider to be "productive" (ie not parasitic).

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

Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:20 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Plus, you never did answer my question about whether the inherited, non-working wealthy are parasites.

Hello,

Wouldn't this depend on what they were doing? Doesn't every person with a heap of money have choices to make about how productively to use it?

If they threw lavish parties every day for the rest of their lives, spending tons of money on decorations and caterers and servers and people to set it up and take it down and clean up after, I imagine that would be a net benefit on their communities, putting money into the hands of workers and suppliers.

Or if they bought a hundred cars or a dozen jets and yachts, I imagine it would benefit a multitude of persons and businesses.

Also if they turned to philanthropy. Funding charity organizations that support communities.

Also if they invested in new technology development. Some invention to benefit mankind.

But not, I imagine, if they sat at home and invested in non-taxable schemes to multiply their wealth without giving the 'government investor' its cut.

--Anthony

Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz

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

Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:08 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
If we see government as a business investing in the members of its society, then we can understand the desire of that business to recoup on its investment whenever that investment bears fruit.

That's an excellent way to see it. I hadn't really thought properly about this issue before, but I was just arriving at this idea - and then you articulated it.

Signy:

Quote:
Rich + non-working = parasite?

But that's not what a parasite means. Parasite means to be sucking lifeblood from something else, not simply being idle. You can say I suppose that this rich inheritor is a parasite off his parents - but then that's true of many, non-rich children. But you're saying he's a parasite off society. How is he sucking wealth out of society? By not working he is squandering the government's investment, as Anthony would say. But this is true of all non-working people - not just rich ones.

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Saturday, November 10, 2012 3:28 PM