If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Progressive student: "We should tax the rich to give the poor more opportunity." Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:   (thelookingspoon.com) divider line 631
    More: Amusing, GPA  
•       •       •

6167 clicks; posted to Politics » on 17 Apr 2011 at 8:03 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



631 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-04-18 11:04:27 AM

Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.


The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages. This is true, hence outsourcing in the modern area to countries where you are allowed to do that. Das Kapital also does not propose revolution. That is the job of the Communist Manifesto.

So yeah, read it before analyzing it. I have yet to read Ayn Rand, so as much as I am tempted to shiat on her work, I refrain from it for this very reason.
 
2011-04-18 11:04:44 AM
Did anyone mention how stupid the analogy is?

Maybe if we were talking about taking all the money from all the rich people, making them poor and distributing it to all the poor people they might have a point. After all this is the "disingenuous" premise they use when ever discussing this issue.

Of course the truth is much different. The nation's federal tax bill is the lowest it has been since the 1950's (look it up if you don't believe me because it is true) and our country is reeling in debt. The current administration is only responsible for 11% of the budget deficit, so we must look further back for a solution. I say lets look back when things were better. Oh, those people in the top tier were paying 2% to 3% more in federal taxes. Weirdest thing too, they didn't go bankrupt but prospered along with the populace as a whole. It wasn't until the tax rates dropped did the economy fall into a huge economic hole.
 
2011-04-18 11:05:12 AM

lennavan: Oh, I CAN absolutely fix poverty. Take the number of people making less than 50k each and multiply by the average amount under 50k they make. Take the number of people making more than 100k a year, divide by the amount you got above. All of that money redistributed to people making less than 50k. Poverty solved, everyone now gets at least 50k a year.




I knew you would go this route as you are an authoritarian left wing collectivist... AKA a "Progressive".

Your plan does not work on several levels, the biggest being that the poor will always find a way to return to being poor.

The forced equality of shared misery is what you want.
 
2011-04-18 11:05:55 AM

PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?



I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.
 
2011-04-18 11:06:26 AM

Thune: Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.


Or maybe, just maybe, it's a complex system involving BOTH, and it's not black and white? You morons.
 
2011-04-18 11:06:57 AM

chasd00: i think the analogy isn't totally off base.

You have a baseline GPA required to get into college (say 3.0, just making that up) which equates to the cost of living.

So the students with > 3.0 should give points to those with
Whether a student is born into a 5000 GPA or works their butt off repairing past circumstances resulting in a 1.0 GPA and makes it to 4.0 is immaterial. The analogy still stands, redistribution of GPA wealth brings those below cost of living (3.0) to at least cost of living.

Anyone with a GPA some number higher than 3.0 gives up points for those below 3.0

If progressives aren't on board then they need to think about redistribution of wealth some more.


Money is not an indicator of merit. It is a medium of exchange, and nothing more. If conservatives cannot understand this principle, then they need to think about their priorities some more.
 
2011-04-18 11:09:11 AM

tony41454: With all being said and done, you don't (over)tax those who create the jobs. You create a business friendly environment for economic growth to happen. THAT'S how job growth occurs. If the "rich" have more money, they invest in more factories to create more money, which in turn creates more jobs and wages. This is how it's done. Redistributing (or taking away) what someone has worked hard for discourages growth and innovation, factories close down, people lose jobs. I guess this is what Obama wants, since that's what he's doing.


While I agree with you in principle, what constitutes "overtaxing"? If you ask the tax-ees, many will say anything over zero percent is overtaxing. That's patently ridiculous, but that's where many conservatives are making their stand. So if you're unwilling to negotiate and you insist on a unreasonable goal, you shouldn't be surprised when your negotiating partner throws up his hands and simply assigns a tax rate you find to be onerous.

For instance, we're now faced with a dilemma in the US. The choices seem to be raise taxes on the wealthy (with the understanding--I'm being honest here--that when the economy improves middle class tax rates will go up as well) or cut social spending to the bone and throw the elderly, infirm and veterans under the bus. Thus far the conservative response has been "Oh well, nice knowing you elderly, infirm and veterans. I'm sure you won't mind making this sacrifice for the good of the country." Ultimately, the affected groups will come to their senses and say "I'm voting for the guy who'll stiff the rich so my benefits don't disappear." A much better solution would be for everyyone to take a small hit--for the elderly to pay, say, 5% or 10% more for their health care and for the wealthy to accept, say, a tax rate of 37.5% rather than the proposed 39.5%. But the conservatives have to be willing to compromise, and that seems to be outside their political vocabulary.
 
2011-04-18 11:09:39 AM
Progressive student: "We should tax the rich to give the poor more opportunity." Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:

Well submitter that article summation is a perfect definition of the phrase "false equivalency".
 
2011-04-18 11:09:51 AM

Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)


What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.
 
2011-04-18 11:11:05 AM
Americans overwhelmingly say tax the rich.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147080/americans-back-budget-deal-declare-no-winner. a spx
 
2011-04-18 11:14:36 AM

jchuffyman: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages. This is true, hence outsourcing in the modern area to countries where you are allowed to do that. Das Kapital also does not propose revolution. That is the job of the Communist Manifesto.

So yeah, read it before analyzing it. I have yet to read Ayn Rand, so as much as I am tempted to shiat on her work, I refrain from it for this very reason.



You are misrepresenting. I never said Das Kapital promoted Revolution.

(although, a concept that pushes class warfare cant really lead anywhere else.)

"The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages."

Exactly. Do i need to go any further? you already proved in one concept, a concept of your choosing, why the book and thesis is flawed.

To think that that correctly captures capitalism is to avoid acknowleging the billions that have been steadily moved out of poverty since the industrial revolution took off.

Simple equation, if the populace cannot afford your product, manufacturers cannot get rich selling them.

So the notion that capitalism is just a system to keep the populace poor is nonsense.
 
2011-04-18 11:16:23 AM

Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.


Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.
 
2011-04-18 11:17:02 AM

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)

What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.


how many words do you need to use to misrepresent the argument?

You said they pay taxes.

If they get it all back, plus an EITC, they don't.
 
2011-04-18 11:19:31 AM

Phil Herup: I knew you would go this route as you are an authoritarian left wing collectivist... AKA a "Progressive".

Your plan does not work on several levels, the biggest being that the poor will always find a way to return to being poor.

The forced equality of shared misery is what you want.


Oh, I said this is what we CAN do, not what we SHOULD do.

These two things are beyond your comprehension.
 
2011-04-18 11:19:45 AM

Biological Ali: Conservative: "So you'd be cool with me taking some points off your GPA to give the dumb some opportunity, right?" Progressive student:

I think that I too would be left speechless if somebody actually said something that stupid to me.


If you're going to nitpick at nuance and completely ignore the very obvious "point," sure.

The gist is: When people are successful, they're not indebted to anyone for being successful. Regardless of your "progressive" ideas of neat things you can do with my money, it's not yours and I don't care about your extravagant plans to spend my money.

Get over it and fark off.

/People need to be told to fark off more regularly, they're getting too nosey.
 
2011-04-18 11:21:47 AM

Thune: Are you serious or trolling?

Even if you could pull off such a totalitarian transfer, there would be people in poverty in less than 2 years.

There is, and always will, be a subset of the population that produces nothing, or are a net drag.

There are people that will blow that 50k on drugs, alcohol, strippers, gambling, and any number of pointless crap, and be broke again in no time.

Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.


From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.

Here's the point. The United States has:

X wealth
Y people

I contend:

X / Y > poverty

It is possible, we can do it. The question is not can we do it, it is SHOULD we do it.
 
2011-04-18 11:22:25 AM

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.

Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.




If I agreed to sell my services for X amount, and they agreed to pay X amount, then what's the problem?

I can renegotiate at any time, and i am free to take my services elsewhere at any time.

No market is truly free. The issue is the degree of freedom.

I want the market to be more free, you want it to be less.
 
2011-04-18 11:22:34 AM

chasd00: heh cute, and then prices skyrocket because of what the market can bear and in about 5 years you're right back where you started.


shh, adults are talking.
 
2011-04-18 11:24:58 AM

Thune: To think that that correctly captures capitalism is to avoid acknowleging the billions that have been steadily moved out of poverty since the industrial revolution took off.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Capitalism's approval rate down to 11%

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/11_november/09/poll . shtml

Must be cause everyone is lazy and has no "character".
 
2011-04-18 11:25:45 AM

Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages. This is true, hence outsourcing in the modern area to countries where you are allowed to do that. Das Kapital also does not propose revolution. That is the job of the Communist Manifesto.

So yeah, read it before analyzing it. I have yet to read Ayn Rand, so as much as I am tempted to shiat on her work, I refrain from it for this very reason.


You are misrepresenting. I never said Das Kapital promoted Revolution.

(although, a concept that pushes class warfare cant really lead anywhere else.)

"The main theme is capitalism works best (makes the most profit) when workers are neglected and paid shiatty wages."

Exactly. Do i need to go any further? you already proved in one concept, a concept of your choosing, why the book and thesis is flawed.

To think that that correctly captures capitalism is to avoid acknowleging the billions that have been steadily moved out of poverty since the industrial revolution took off.

Simple equation, if the populace cannot afford your product, manufacturers cannot get rich selling them.

So the notion that capitalism is just a system to keep the populace poor is nonsense.


Ok, maybe not all the way true, But I agree, you have to have people to buy your products.Which, in the 19th century, most of the production and selling would be done in a smaller area. Today it works because the producers, aka, some asian kid, are not the same as the consumers. However, Marx thought capitalism was an unsustainable system. So keeping people poor would not work forever. But you have to keep in mind that Marx was writing at a time before social safety nets existed. In essence, capitalist systems became regulated by the government, which took away a lot of the excesses that would have been there in the 19th century. So one way to look at it is more care given to workers happened without a revolution being necessary.
 
2011-04-18 11:26:15 AM

Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)

What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.

how many words do you need to use to misrepresent the argument?

You said they pay taxes.

If they get it all back, plus an EITC, they don't.


How hard can you try to ignore per-pay deductions? On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero, but the point I was trying to raise - which you flatly refuse to acknowledge - is that on scales shorter than a year, taxes are still being withheld from paycheques, contributing to continuous government revenue. It would be easier for the given individual if they only paid (or didn't) at the end of the fiscal year, but that military and court system won't fund itself in between - so they pay, and get back anything they overpaid, based on the tax code, at the end of the fiscal year.

This is not difficult to understand.
 
2011-04-18 11:27:02 AM

lennavan: Oh, I said this is what we CAN do, not what we SHOULD do.

These two things are beyond your comprehension.




No. What is beyond your comprehension is that it would not work even if you did actually do it.
 
2011-04-18 11:29:46 AM

PlatinumDragon: On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero....




Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.
 
2011-04-18 11:31:12 AM

LasersHurt: Thune: Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a complex system involving BOTH, and it's not black and white? You morons.


Oh it is a complex system. It involves culture.

If Somalis, Chinese, or Vietnamese immigrants can, within a generation, have progeny attending college, then the problem of "poor" is not a result of the system, it is a result of culture. They prove by their success that it is possible to succeed here, even easy (as compared to other nations).
No, Poverty is a result of the lazy ass, victim culture endemic to indigenous poor in the nation that have been bred to believe that the system is stacked against them, that they are owed a livelyhood, and that it's better to hold up liquor stores and sell drugs, then to work hard for it.

If you remove the "culture" issues from the "poor" equation, "Poverty" truly does become an effect in this nation, not a cause.
 
2011-04-18 11:32:47 AM

AnotherDisillusionedCollegeStudent: chasd00: i think the analogy isn't totally off base.

You have a baseline GPA required to get into college (say 3.0, just making that up) which equates to the cost of living.

So the students with > 3.0 should give points to those with
Whether a student is born into a 5000 GPA or works their butt off repairing past circumstances resulting in a 1.0 GPA and makes it to 4.0 is immaterial. The analogy still stands, redistribution of GPA wealth brings those below cost of living (3.0) to at least cost of living.

Anyone with a GPA some number higher than 3.0 gives up points for those below 3.0

If progressives aren't on board then they need to think about redistribution of wealth some more.

Money is not an indicator of merit. It is a medium of exchange, and nothing more. If conservatives cannot understand this principle, then they need to think about their priorities some more.


Money is a side effect of merit just like a high GPA is a side effect of hard work at school. You earn money through work like you earn GPA points through work.

Some are born with a 5000 GPA and some are born with a 0 GPA, most are born with a 3.1 GPA. Some are born millionaires, some are born in poverty, most are born middle class.

A weakness in the conservative argument are those with wildly high GPA's (like say > 250 ). You could argue that they have met the requirements to get into any college and therefore they should be the ones to pay. It would equivalent to taxing the households earning more than 250k/year like what has been proposed.

The more I think about it the more I see the failure of the analogy because the GPA scale stops pretty much at 4.0 and there is no ceiling on wealth. So I concede the point on this one, lucky you :)
 
2011-04-18 11:33:04 AM

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero....



Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.


Last time I checked even a minimum wage worker is paying into social security and medicare.
 
2011-04-18 11:33:10 AM

Phil Herup: Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.


Finally, someone says what we're all thinking: These poor people have it too easy! No more free rides!
 
2011-04-18 11:33:14 AM

lennavan: Thune: Are you serious or trolling?

Even if you could pull off such a totalitarian transfer, there would be people in poverty in less than 2 years.

There is, and always will, be a subset of the population that produces nothing, or are a net drag.

There are people that will blow that 50k on drugs, alcohol, strippers, gambling, and any number of pointless crap, and be broke again in no time.

Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.

Here's the point. The United States has:

X wealth
Y people

I contend:

X / Y > poverty

It is possible, we can do it. The question is not can we do it, it is SHOULD we do it.



Absof*ckinglutely Not.

Good lord, read a book on economics, and moral hazzard.

any book.
 
2011-04-18 11:33:32 AM

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero....



Again... point over.


Also it is not really a "burden" if it is zero. What these people are doing is getting away with mostly a free ride. Yet they complain about the very people who support and subsidize their cost to America.


Good to see you agree with raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy Phil, I didn't think you had it in you sir.

Link (new window)
 
2011-04-18 11:36:46 AM

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them,

People who do not pay any income taxes, or barely any, do not need breaks.

Because the ability to buy beans and rice isn't a need. The ability to buy a slightly larger yacht is a need. Right?


If you don't pay income taxes, you don't need a break from them. This can not get any simpler.

Since when is "barely any" equal to zero?

Help me here - income and FICA taxes are still withheld from paycheques even if the person would qualify for EITC at tax filing time, right?

If so, that means even those who "don't pay income taxes" actually do - they're participating in government cash flow, they just get a refund and a piddling bit more back when their taxes are filed... assuming they qualify for EITC.


This is take-the-cake nonsense.

IF THEY GET IT BACK THEY DONT PAY TAXES.

Not even counting the EITC.

(and dont give me that state and local taxes crap, you know we are talking about Federal income tax.)

What part of "cash flow" did you fail to understand? Until that refund arrives/they get old or sick enough to start drawing SS, those taxes are still gone from the hypothetical low-income taxpayer's cheque. If that refund is less than the entire amount in income taxes withheld, they paid taxes in net terms.

Given the present wealth distribution, getting huffy about tax refunds to several million people who hold less than 5% of the country's resources is... pretty miserly.

how many words do you need to use to misrepresent the argument?

You said they pay taxes.

If they get it all back, plus an EITC, they don't.

How hard can you try to ignore per-pay deductions? On a full-year basis the tax burden may work out to zero, but the point I was trying to raise - which you flatly refuse to acknowledge - is that on scales shorter than a year, taxes are still being withheld from paycheques, contributing to continuous government revenue. It would be easier for the given individual if they only paid (or didn't) at the end of the fiscal year, but that military and court system won't fund itself in between - so they pay, and get back anything they overpaid, based on the tax code, at the end of the fiscal year.

This is not difficult to understand.


Nor is it material.

If i pay 500$ into taxes for the year, but get 500$ back plus a 4000$ EITC, then i payed no taxes.

This is not difficult to understand.
 
2011-04-18 11:40:43 AM

Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.

Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.



If I agreed to sell my services for X amount, and they agreed to pay X amount, then what's the problem?

I can renegotiate at any time, and i am free to take my services elsewhere at any time.

No market is truly free. The issue is the degree of freedom.

I want the market to be more free, you want it to be less.


You have no idea what I want, and presenting theory fails as an argument in the face of reality, where no individual is an island and collective entities - whether publicly-accountable or privately-organized - can bring much more economic force to bear than the vast majority of individuals.

If both sides are satisfied with the transaction, awesome - but they still own the results of your work unless you have an agreement to receive a share of the revenue from further trade of the result. This isn't college communism, this is a fair description of the reality. You provide labour, they pay you in exchange for your time and effort, and they own the result, with which to do as they please.

When these transactions and behaviours are scaled up to groups of several hundred, thousand, or million people, it's not quite so elegant anymore.
 
Xai
2011-04-18 11:41:32 AM
wow, that has to be the dumbest thing ever said. no wonder the progressive student didn't answer.

I'm glad that conservative isn't an economist since he can't tell the difference between tradeable, tangeble assets (cash) and analysis data of intangable factors (consumer confidence, etc)
 
2011-04-18 11:43:11 AM

Thune: lennavan: Thune: Are you serious or trolling?

Even if you could pull off such a totalitarian transfer, there would be people in poverty in less than 2 years.

There is, and always will, be a subset of the population that produces nothing, or are a net drag.

There are people that will blow that 50k on drugs, alcohol, strippers, gambling, and any number of pointless crap, and be broke again in no time.

Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.

Here's the point. The United States has:

X wealth
Y people

I contend:

X / Y > poverty

It is possible, we can do it. The question is not can we do it, it is SHOULD we do it.



Absof*ckinglutely Not.

A well reasoned reply, well explained and very thorough. I'm convinced.

Thune: Good lord, read a book on economics, and moral hazzard.


Why would I read a book on economics? Solutions do not have to follow the rules of free market economics.

Read a book on moral hazard? Hey, I couldn't agree more. It is absolutely a question of whether or not we SHOULD do it. Morals and all. I love that you agree with me but your reply is super pouty mad proclaiming otherwise. It's funny.
 
2011-04-18 11:45:14 AM

PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: PlatinumDragon: Thune: jchuffyman: Thune: EberhardKarl: Read it.
Analyze it.
Decide for yourself.

Marx's analysis has been brought into the 21st century by a number of his proponents, but both the core of his method and the beef of his criticism of capitalist political economy is still as relevant as they were in 1867.

If, after that you, want to ignore the rest of his and Engels' writing, go ahead. I could truly care less.

My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital. They don't know a bloody thing about the thing they most fear, which is likely in part why they fear it.


We haven't made it through Mein Kampf either, you suggest we read that one?

I have, but that was for historical interest. Also have read the Communist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations, the Koran and other various influential books

Mein Kampf is the scariest farking book I've ever read


I don't really need to read Das Kapital, to know its crap.

The whole foundation of the book is that some people own other peoples labor.

That the collective owns the fruits of the individuals labor.

No, they don't.

Never worked for a corporation, have you?


I work for one now.

And they do not "own", by fiat, the fruits of my labor.

I sell it to them, willingly.

It is a mutually benificial trade of money for services.

Free Market.

Learn something.

Ah, so you are also given a percentage of the profit from your labour as well as your base wage? You're part of an ownership collective? You can renegotiate your labour sales contract at any time with an expectation that you will be treated as a equal partner in the transaction? You have access to perfect information?

If you think anyone is operating in a truly free market, you're kidding yourself.



If I agreed to sell my services for X amount, and they agreed to pay X amount, then what's the problem?

I can renegotiate at any time, and i am free to take my services elsewhere at any time.

No market is truly free. The issue is the degree of freedom.

I want the market to be more free, you want it to be less.

You have no idea what I want, and presenting theory fails as an argument in the face of reality, where no individual is an island and collective entities - whether publicly-accountable or privately-organized - can bring much more economic force to bear than the vast majority of individuals.

If both sides are satisfied with the transaction, awesome - but they still own the results of your work unless you have an agreement to receive a share of the revenue from further trade of the result. This isn't college communism, this is a fair description of the reality. You provide labour, they pay you in exchange for your time and effort, and they own the result, with which to do as they please.

When these transactions and behaviours are scaled up to groups of several hundred, thousand, or million people, it's not quite so elegant anymore.


No, what is more elegant is to let socialism get involved.

To let Major labor unions drive up the cost of production in the United States pushing manufacturing overseas.

Turning once vibrant manufacturing hubs such as Detroit into Collective bargaining shiatholes.
 
2011-04-18 11:46:54 AM

Cats_Lie: Last time I checked even a minimum wage worker is paying into social security and medicare.



Wow... they always go there. Every tax thread is about "income taxes", yet the left always feels the need to redirect and point out that there are other taxes too.

Did I say this before? Lemme check..

Phil Herup: Thune: you know we are talking about Federal income tax.



Dude.... every tax thread involves an attempt to redirect the point away from this fact by the FARK LibsTM. The left can not logically debate in income tax threads, so they have to bring up the other taxes every time.



Sure did.
 
2011-04-18 11:48:49 AM

Phil Herup: The only type of tax is an income tax


I disagree!
 
2011-04-18 11:49:51 AM

Thune: LasersHurt: Thune: Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a complex system involving BOTH, and it's not black and white? You morons.

Oh it is a complex system. It involves culture.

If Somalis, Chinese, or Vietnamese immigrants can, within a generation, have progeny attending college, then the problem of "poor" is not a result of the system, it is a result of culture. They prove by their success that it is possible to succeed here, even easy (as compared to other nations).
No, Poverty is a result of the lazy ass, victim culture endemic to indigenous poor in the nation that have been bred to believe that the system is stacked against them, that they are owed a livelyhood, and that it's better to hold up liquor stores and sell drugs, then to work hard for it.

If you remove the "culture" issues from the "poor" equation, "Poverty" truly does become an effect in this nation, not a cause.


So the rest of us need to shore up our public education. Not cut education spending.
 
2011-04-18 11:50:22 AM

lennavan: I disagree!




I see you felt the need to return to your comfort zone of lying.
 
2011-04-18 11:50:34 AM
I get that it's meant to be satire, but it's still idiotic.
 
2011-04-18 11:53:30 AM

lennavan: Why would I read a book on economics? Solutions do not have to follow the rules of free market economics.


/palmface

Economics rules everything. Even in the USSR.

You can no more ignore economics than you can the laws of gravity.

For instance, the government decided to subsidize ethanol production in the United States which led to vast amounts of corn redircted to fuel production. The government perceived this happening in a vacuum. But Economics said otherwise. In reality this redirection of corn produced increased worldwide food prices. In several locations to crisis levels.

It doesn't matter whether you are Ayn Rand, Karl Marx or Obama, you cannot escape economics.

You would do yourself well to read up on it.
 
2011-04-18 11:54:51 AM

Ablejack: Thune: LasersHurt: Thune: Poverty is not the cause, it's an effect.

Or maybe, just maybe, it's a complex system involving BOTH, and it's not black and white? You morons.

Oh it is a complex system. It involves culture.

If Somalis, Chinese, or Vietnamese immigrants can, within a generation, have progeny attending college, then the problem of "poor" is not a result of the system, it is a result of culture. They prove by their success that it is possible to succeed here, even easy (as compared to other nations).
No, Poverty is a result of the lazy ass, victim culture endemic to indigenous poor in the nation that have been bred to believe that the system is stacked against them, that they are owed a livelyhood, and that it's better to hold up liquor stores and sell drugs, then to work hard for it.

If you remove the "culture" issues from the "poor" equation, "Poverty" truly does become an effect in this nation, not a cause.

So the rest of us need to shore up our public education. Not cut education spending.


Did the Somalis have better education in Somalia?

No.
 
2011-04-18 11:56:06 AM

Phil Herup: Phil Herup: Thune: you know we are talking about Federal income tax.



Dude.... every tax thread involves an attempt to redirect the point away from this fact by the FARK LibsTM. The left can not logically debate in income tax threads, so they have to bring up the other taxes every time.


Sure did.


Wait... did you just call Thune a liberal?

That... that's just stupid beyond words.
 
2011-04-18 11:56:27 AM

Phil Herup: lennavan: I disagree!



I see you felt the need to return to your comfort zone of lying.


Nah, my comfort zone is to pretend there is to simplify things down into a single issue facing our country and assume that anything I do to address or change that one single issue has no effect on anything else in the country.

That's why I'm for cutting taxes for everyone, especially the rich. What could go wrong?
 
2011-04-18 11:56:44 AM
No, what is more elegant is to let socialism get involved.

To let Major labor unions drive up the cost of production in the United States pushing manufacturing overseas.

Turning once vibrant manufacturing hubs such as Detroit into Collective bargaining shiatholes.


I never said a word about implementing a single, rigid system of labour negotiation - nor did I miss the effort to blame the downfall of large manufacturing operations purely on collective bargaining agreements, excluding the numerous other factors that influenced the decline of that city, which I grew up across from and watched as I grew up.

Curious how you seem to have a problem with one set of individuals leveraging their collective agency to obtain increased compensation, while another doing the same thing on a wider scale is just the "free market" in action. 'Course, there are factors I could name that ensure that wider scale is nowhere near a "free market" either.
 
2011-04-18 11:56:59 AM

lennavan: From those people, we can take 25k away from each and have the government spend that money for them. Provide them government homes, food, clothes and so on.


mrsgallegos.files.wordpress.com

Okay, Stalin.
 
kab
2011-04-18 11:57:35 AM

Phil Herup: Wow... they always go there. Every tax thread is about "income taxes", yet the left always feels the need to redirect and point out that there are other taxes too.

Did I say this before? Lemme check..


Probably because they're all considered taxes on your income? And that they all signify the contribution that individual is making to society?

Go figure. You dislike it because it blows holes in your "free ride" nonsense.
 
2011-04-18 11:57:54 AM

Thune: To let Major labor unions drive up the cost of production in the United States pushing manufacturing overseas.


!

I like you.
 
2011-04-18 11:58:26 AM

HeartBurnKid: Wait... did you just call Thune a liberal?

That... that's just stupid beyond words.




Reading comprehension.... how does it farking work?


Go and actually read the whole post and you'll see I was reposting a response to Thune to make a point.
 
kab
2011-04-18 11:59:56 AM
We can argue all day about who should and should not be taxed, and at what level, but one thing is certain. The US economy isn't going to actually improve with the current amount of monetary consolidation that is in effect.

Money works when it's moving.
 
2011-04-18 12:00:08 PM

Thune: For instance, the government decided to subsidize ethanol production in the United States which led to vast amounts of corn redircted to fuel production. The government perceived this happening in a vacuum. But Economics said otherwise. In reality this redirection of corn produced increased worldwide food prices. In several locations to crisis levels.

It doesn't matter whether you are Ayn Rand, Karl Marx or Obama, you cannot escape economics.


Government subsidies as an example of free market economics? Ouch. Again, I think you and I are in complete agreement, you just don't recognize it.

I agree, we should look to things like morals and opinions when deciding if we SHOULD. What's more we should look to government subsidies to push the country in a direction that economics would not take us. Your example specifically I disagree with corn ethanol but whatever. The point is the same, the government can defy econ.
 
Displayed 50 of 631 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report