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  
•       •       •

6165 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 10:06:17 AM

Phil Herup: Of course, your chances will go down quite a bit as a result.


There's your problem Phil. Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

So...if the 3.5 GPA student could drop to, say, 3.47 and it results in twenty other students going from 1.5 to 2.5, then I don't think the high GPS student gave up much at all, nor were their prospect in any way diminished. The other students, though, just got a much better chance.

Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?
 
2011-04-18 10:08:48 AM

Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit".



I see. Just because it wont affect them "too much" it is therefore OK to take it.

Even though they already pay the most, it is still not enough.


Got it.
 
2011-04-18 10:09:42 AM

Lockeslessons: Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?




We don't need it.


The problem is the spending.
 
2011-04-18 10:16:23 AM

Phil Herup: I see. Just because it wont affect them "too much" it is therefore OK to take it.

Even though they already pay the most, it is still not enough.

Got it.


Why do you even bother pretending that you are a Republican troll? If you were a true Republican, the idea that the rich pay any taxes would disgust you. Please stop the charade. It's pathetic. You do not love this country like I do. You only love trolling people on this message board, you clown. I fight the good fight on Fark.com because I want this country to succeed. I do not want liberals to corrupt it. I want to win. You merely pretend that you want to win.
 
2011-04-18 10:16:38 AM

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: But, if I could out I could modify my 3.81 and change it to a 2.00, and as a result 1,000 families would be able to feed their children, or get grandpa the medical treatment he needs... damn right I would happily donate my points.


But would you dole out your points so that a dumb kid could have moar points and have a better chance at post graduate school?


No, of course not. Is this part of the analogy?

Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them, and not be in favor of tax breaks for people who don't?
 
2011-04-18 10:16:44 AM

Phil Herup: Lockeslessons: Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?



We don't need it.


The problem is the spending.


Ronnie thought we did. Was he wrong? Granted, he was dealing with the Cold War and we're dealing with the aftermath of two actual wars...but just to be clear...Ronald Reagan was wrong? Just wanna hear you say it.
 
2011-04-18 10:21:50 AM

Lockeslessons: Phil Herup: Of course, your chances will go down quite a bit as a result.

There's your problem Phil. Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

So...if the 3.5 GPA student could drop to, say, 3.47 and it results in twenty other students going from 1.5 to 2.5, then I don't think the high GPS student gave up much at all, nor were their prospect in any way diminished. The other students, though, just got a much better chance.

Also, not that you'll answer this, but what would be wrong with returning to the tax rates under Saint Ronnie Reagan?


St_Francis_P: That headline might make sense if the Progressive student had a 5,000 GPA, but only needed the normal 4.0.


This and this.

I would turn around and ask the guy if he is suggesting that there should be a cap in place on the maximum amount of money one is allowed to make.
 
2011-04-18 10:23:11 AM

Cats_Lie: Why can't I be in favor of tax breaks for people who need and deserve them, and not be in favor of tax breaks for people who don't?


Deserve, as in, have worked for/earned?
 
2011-04-18 10:24:20 AM
Phil is on my ignore list, so my conversation with him was in quotes from other people. Considering I have a job lined up in the fall, you have no point. Although, the job is overseas, so I guess its not American enough for you.
 
2011-04-18 10:24:34 AM
when will the GOP compare apples to oranges? There doesn't have to be competition in classes, that usually is forced.

The top 400 earners paid on average 17% for their effective tax rate. I'm guessing this is less of a percentage than 99.99% of America. I really just want them to pay more or equal to what I do in terms of percent of income. Right now they pay less. So its like they are the ones that would be receiving the grades redistributed. But its from the 0to 3.98 GPA to the 3.99 group.
 
2011-04-18 10:26:39 AM
When you argue by analogy, the correct way to attack is to show how the analogy does not hold up.

For instance:

St_Francis_P: That headline might make sense if the Progressive student had a 5,000 GPA, but only needed the normal 4.0.


Well said, my good sir.

It also might make sense if that progressive student had been BORN IN to that 5,000 GPA and only needed a 4.0. You know, rather than earned it himself.

It also might make sense if that progressive student had been in charge of a group of students where they agreed to do all of his work for him so he could kick back and rake in his 4.0 in exchange for a 1.0 because otherwise they couldn't afford the school.

Many ways the analogy breaks down. But I'm sure we'll hear this one again.
 
2011-04-18 10:27:16 AM

Phil Herup: Jpud73: Still nothing on Phil Herup's degree status.


I thought you had to be kidding.



Monkeyfark Ridiculous: You might try, say, a Google search before mocking the use of a phrase simply because you're ignorant of it.


"A large minority of average people" is a walking contradiction.


If you can't figure out what a "large minority" of the population set termed "average people" means, I don't want you anywhere near my teeth.
 
2011-04-18 10:27:43 AM

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.
 
2011-04-18 10:29:25 AM

PlatinumDragon: If you can't figure out what a "large minority" of the population set termed "average people" means, I don't want you anywhere near my teeth.



So the average people are a minority? OK.

They are a large minority.
 
2011-04-18 10:31:26 AM

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: If you can't figure out what a "large minority" of the population set termed "average people" means, I don't want you anywhere near my teeth.


So the average people are a minority? OK.

They are a large minority.


And you're staying far, far away from my mouth.
 
2011-04-18 10:32:09 AM

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.


Some of them do.

Anyway, they need them more than billionaires do.
 
2011-04-18 10:32:48 AM
I'm definitely in favor of a required course in critical thinking skills. It would eventually cut down on stupid comparisons.

Even worse than the false-equivalence is all the people patting the derper on the back for coming up with something that makes complete sense to them.
 
2011-04-18 10:33:31 AM

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?
 
2011-04-18 10:33:55 AM

Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.


Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?
 
2011-04-18 10:35:42 AM
The premise of the post is silly in the first place. Who gives a shiat what a student has to say about anything?

"HURR, I'VE GONE TO COLLEGE FOR FIVE SEMESTERS NOW, I THINK I KNOW HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY BETTER THAN THOUSANDS OF ECONOMISTS WITH THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE WHO STILL CAN'T FIX THE GLOBAL ECONOMY."

That's pretty much the basis for Fark, by the way. There are teams of experienced economists out there who are far smarter than the twentysomething retards here, and they don't know how to fix anything, but everyone on Fark knows how to fix the economy, yes sir.

The bottom line is, no one knows. If we knew, we wouldn't be in the predicament we're in. Would changing tax structures fix anything? Maybe, but you're a retard if you're 100 percent positive about it.

Not to mention, keywords: GLOBAL ECONOMY. Taxing a relative handful of people in the United States to the tune of a few billions of dollars more isn't going to cause some massive tidal wave of economic renewal throughout the world.
 
2011-04-18 10:36:55 AM

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.
 
2011-04-18 10:37:16 AM

GAT_00: That's a stupid analogy. The whole idea behind affirmative action is that it lets someone who doesn't have absolute proof of excellence, such as someone without a great GPA, into college so they can excel on their own merits. When they're given the chance to go to school and have it paid for, it's now their own terms on passing and failing. Why is it that conservatives are so unable to grasp actual systems and instead fall back onto bad analogies that completely fail to address anything? Are you all that invested in your own bullshiat that you've lost all ability to reason?


Isn't it more than a bit racist to assume minorities are incapable of success without some form of government assistance?

Conservatives don't care whether minorities succeed or fail. I think that's far more respectful than the alternative.
 
2011-04-18 10:38:09 AM

topcon: The premise of the post is silly in the first place. Who gives a shiat what a student has to say about anything?




Exactly.
 
2011-04-18 10:39:51 AM

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.


Yes, I know, conservatives are geniuses when it comes to the simple. The problem is, they just don't get it that some things are actually more complex.
 
2011-04-18 10:40:45 AM
I took the last part of the headline to imply that the progressive student sat in stunned silence due to the complete stupidity of the conservative student's analogy.
 
2011-04-18 10:41:41 AM

LL316: Conservatives don't care whether minorities succeed or fail. I think that's far more respectful than the alternative.


That's not accurate. It's more accurate to say that if you succeed or fail, conservatives don't care what the color of your skin is, and don't think persons of one skin color deserve a head start at the other's expense.
 
2011-04-18 10:41:51 AM

Occam's Nailfile: Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?


I guess the remaining $970 000 just isn't enough. Mind you, if a severe medical crisis is the reason, $1 million can disappear in little time. Thankfully, I live in a place where eeeebilsozializm means a family unit is less likely to be financially shattered by a health catastrophe, because everyone pitches in a bit for those who need it - rich, poor, and everyone in between.
 
2011-04-18 10:42:53 AM

Cats_Lie: The problem is, they just don't get it that some things are actually more complex.




Riiiiiiight. We need some "nuance" here.


It is the only way you can sidestep the contradictions and hypocrisy.
 
2011-04-18 10:43:41 AM

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?
 
2011-04-18 10:43:42 AM

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?
 
2011-04-18 10:44:28 AM

PlatinumDragon: Occam's Nailfile: Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?

I guess the remaining $970 000 just isn't enough. Mind you, if a severe medical crisis is the reason, $1 million can disappear in little time. Thankfully, I live in a place where eeeebilsozializm means a family unit is less likely to be financially shattered by a health catastrophe, because everyone pitches in a bit for those who need it - rich, poor, and everyone in between.

The government already gets about $350,000 on that transaction, you jackass.

 
2011-04-18 10:45:25 AM

topcon: The premise of the post is silly in the first place. Who gives a shiat what a student has to say about anything?


The premise of your post is retarded in the first place. Students 18 and above get to vote. That's why politicians should care. Now, you could go down the route these kids get to vote but by and large don't because they're farking morons too lazy to go to the polls and thats why no one gives a shiat what they have to say, and I'd agree with you. But you didn't. Instead you went on to say:

topcon: "HURR, I'VE GONE TO COLLEGE FOR FIVE SEMESTERS NOW, I THINK I KNOW HOW TO FIX THE ECONOMY BETTER THAN THOUSANDS OF ECONOMISTS WITH THOUSANDS OF YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE WHO STILL CAN'T FIX THE GLOBAL ECONOMY."



Are you an economist? Do you know better? How many people in the United States know better than the thousands of economists you cite? You just argued that pretty much no one should have any input whatsoever into the country and society they live in. We should have some intellectual elite ruling class and the rest of us just be happy.

topcon: but everyone on Fark knows how to fix the economy, yes sir.

The bottom line is, no one knows.


Here's the thing, pretty much everyone knows how to fix the economy. It's closer to 100% than it is to 0%. If I stuck a gun to everyone's head 18 and above and said "GIVE ME A SUCCESSFUL WAY TO FIX THE ECONOMY OR YOU WILL DIE" they'd get it right.

The question is not how CAN we fix the economy, that's well known. The question is how SHOULD we fix the economy? Do you see how these two questions are completely different?

I can fix poverty in the United States completely. So can you. The solution is not hard. I can fix the budget in the United States completely. So can you. It's not hard. The question is how SHOULD we. And that's where and why the opinions of the masses matter. Because it's our country. We can absolutely fix the debt by cutting costs to zero while raising taxes on everyone. The debt will absolutely be fixed. Should we do that? I don't think so.
 
2011-04-18 10:45:39 AM

heinekenftw: Freep Impact: "I want to see some FReeper school teacher try this with their students and see what the reaction is! Watch the children freak, the parents freak, and the local teacher's union freak. Then explain it was a joke to teach that redistribution of property isn't a good idea.

Any FReeper teachers willing to give it the old college try? LOL!"

Done it already. :)

I brought candy.

Everytime a student got a question right, I put it aside.

I separated each one so that the students thought they'd get the candy after class.

Then when class was over I shoved them all together and divided them evenly.

Lesson learned.

what?

so . . . he taught a bunch of kid that they get a fair share of candy after class.


He taught a select group of kids to feel entitled to more candy than they received.

One Freeper responded to the story by recommending the teacher do that with grades next year. No really.
 
2011-04-18 10:46:55 AM

Mentat: EberhardKarl: My best guess however, is that not a single Fark Independent or Conservative has made it through even Volume I of Capital.

In their defense, Das Kapital is the most boring goddamn book ever written. It makes Moby Dick look like a Fourth of July parade.


This is very true
 
2011-04-18 10:47:16 AM

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.
 
2011-04-18 10:49:28 AM

lennavan: I can fix poverty in the United States completely.




This is a huge lie or at least a giant mistake, but considering the source we'll go with "lie". The War on Poverty has been about as successful as the War on Drugs.
 
2011-04-18 10:49:53 AM

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
 
2011-04-18 10:50:07 AM

PlatinumDragon: 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




I rest my case.
 
2011-04-18 10:50:45 AM

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.)
 
2011-04-18 10:53:19 AM

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.
 
2011-04-18 10:54:25 AM

Phil Herup: PlatinumDragon: 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



I rest my case.


As in he just made the point that ends the argument, or that he just turned the stupid dial to 11?
 
2011-04-18 10:55:32 AM

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.
 
2011-04-18 10:56:32 AM
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.
 
2011-04-18 10:57:25 AM

Phil Herup: lennavan: I can fix poverty in the United States completely.



This is a huge lie or at least a giant mistake, but considering the source we'll go with "lie". The War on Poverty has been about as successful as the War on Drugs.


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.
 
2011-04-18 10:57:58 AM

Snatch Bandergrip: This analogy doesn't work. Since the poor pay more taxes than the rich, you would have to argue that the hard work of stupid kids is somehow giving a good student better grades.


Almost like a curve of sorts :D
 
2011-04-18 11:00:07 AM

Phil Herup: Cats_Lie: The problem is, they just don't get it that some things are actually more complex.



Riiiiiiight. We need some "nuance" here.


It is the only way you can sidestep the contradictions and hypocrisy.


No

The only way that conservatives can sidestep the idea that they are too stupid for some of these issues is to make fun of smart people.
 
2011-04-18 11:00:35 AM

Occam's Nailfile: PlatinumDragon: Occam's Nailfile: Lockeslessons: Asking the wealthy to take on an extra 3% or so increase does not reduce their net worth by "quite a bit". In fact, it's negligible.

Who farking cares? It's not your money.

And say, for argument, you're talking about someone who has built a business for 40 years, and is now selling it for a million bucks to help his OWN family. Your negligible 3% is worth $30,000 in taxes. In what farking world is that not a lot of money?

I guess the remaining $970 000 just isn't enough. Mind you, if a severe medical crisis is the reason, $1 million can disappear in little time. Thankfully, I live in a place where eeeebilsozializm means a family unit is less likely to be financially shattered by a health catastrophe, because everyone pitches in a bit for those who need it - rich, poor, and everyone in between.

The government already gets about $350,000 on that transaction, you jackass.


Brainfart on my part. $620 000 is still a nice chunk of change, more than a majority of hardworking people on Earth will ever have at one moment in their entire lifetimes. Sure, you may have worked hard for it - so did any employees, people employed in other workplaces, etc., etc... barring medical or old-age issues, amounts of money that seem huge in absolute terms are quite manageable in percentage terms at the levels you're talking about. If you think people pay too much for too little, fine. Don't get huffy about "your" money with someone who also has to contribute "his" money to general upkeep, particularly when the amounts you're ticked about losing could easily support an individual for a year free and clear.

/no, not envious - quite happy on my average wage
//just bemused at the complete lack of perspective
 
2011-04-18 11:02:09 AM

lennavan: Phil Herup: lennavan: I can fix poverty in the United States completely.



This is a huge lie or at least a giant mistake, but considering the source we'll go with "lie". The War on Poverty has been about as successful as the War on Drugs.

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.


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.
 
2011-04-18 11:02:30 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.


Never worked for a corporation, have you?
 
2011-04-18 11:03:36 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.


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.
 
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