It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

impaler: It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

What sort of dumbass libtard would say something like that?

hillbillypharmacist: impaler: It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

What sort of dumbass libtard would say something like that?

First, we decide what needs to be paid for.
Then, we find the money.
If you try to bleed someone on the poverty line for 30% of their income, they'll farking starve to death, or go on foodstamps and welfare, drawing more money.
A 1%er can easily afford paying 40-50% of their income in taxes. I mean, unless they're somehow obligated to expand their fleet of cars with every paycheck.

From the ever wise and often drunk tigger

1) You don't understand diminishing marginal utility. Our system is regressive because it is designed not to tax dollars fairly but utility fairly. If you look down the thread there is an adam smith quote that hints at this. Bluntly put - if you have one dollar, the value to you of an additional dollar is a lot more than if you have 1000 dollars. This is why tax systems attempt to be progressive in a civilised society.

2) You don't understand externality effects. The existence of a government creates an environment in which property rights can be enforced. Without property rights I can just take away your thousand dollars from the above scenario, from the poor person I can only steal one dollar. Ergo you have profited more from the existence of government. It follows that you pay more. This notion is also only a couple of thousand years old.

3) You don't know anything about economic history. Over time in any non progressively taxed economy wealth coagulates and causes an increase in the income gap between rich and poor. Income redistribution has been used in most societies for the last few thousand years to keep this at a manageable level. What happens when they don't? A good example is the French revolution - when the poor have so little that it becomes economically vialble for them to kill the rich and take their stuff. This is also not good for the rich.

Skleenar: kingoomieiii: A 1%er can easily afford paying 40-50% of their income in taxes. I mean, unless they're somehow obligated to expand their fleet of cars with every paycheck.

Now you're not thinking about the private jet and luxury yacht building industry. What is it, libtard-- You want the government to pick winners and losers?

Are you arguing that somehow "grocery stores" are "morally superior" to "luxury yachts?" Are you?

You're joking, right? That's really the first place you go in characterizing distributing hardship? "Picking winners"? "If we take that amount from you, your family will be evicted. If we take it from him, he'll... pout."

Teabaggers and Repubicans, uneducated and using only parts of a book they didn't even bother to read to make decision? GTFO

Skleenar: Are you arguing that somehow "grocery stores" are "morally superior" to "luxury yachts?" Are you?

it's pronounced "throat warbler mangrove"

GameSprocket: kingoomieiii: Skleenar: kingoomieiii: A 1%er can easily afford paying 40-50% of their income in taxes. I mean, unless they're somehow obligated to expand their fleet of cars with every paycheck.

Now you're not thinking about the private jet and luxury yacht building industry. What is it, libtard-- You want the government to pick winners and losers?

Are you arguing that somehow "grocery stores" are "morally superior" to "luxury yachts?" Are you?

You're joking, right? That's really the first place you go in characterizing distributing hardship? "Picking winners"? "If we take that amount from you, your family will be evicted. If we take it from him, he'll... pout."

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

I can't keep the trolls straight anymore.

Dusk-You-n-Me: A good example is the French revolution - when the poor have so little that it becomes economically vialble for them to kill the rich and take their stuff. This is also not good for the rich.

A counter-point would be when Taxbongo claimed he was going to bring hope and change and instead caused the collapse of the financial system, spent the country into financial ruin, put that bill on my children, started three wars, padlocked the gate for the school buses during Katrina, started the fire in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, and sold Michael Vick his dogs so he could have "rooting interest" when he went to watch them fight. Consider your talking points destroyed and dominated like the Republicans have destroyed and dominated Taxbongo in every debate since he usurped power. Consider your talking points...impeached. Like Taxbongo will be impeached on Thursday when the country finds out what he did.

Fark me, this is way too early to be up. I'm really sorry.

His most important commie book is "The Theory of Moral Sentiments."

My favorite Economist: Thorstein Veblen.

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

noted commie libtard Benjamin Franklin

Dusk-You-n-Me: From the ever wise and often drunk tigger

1) You don't understand diminishing marginal utility. Our system is regressive because it is designed not to tax dollars fairly but utility fairly. If you look down the thread there is an adam smith quote that hints at this. Bluntly put - if you have one dollar, the value to you of an additional dollar is a lot more than if you have 1000 dollars. This is why tax systems attempt to be progressive in a civilised society.

2) You don't understand externality effects. The existence of a government creates an environment in which property rights can be enforced. Without property rights I can just take away your thousand dollars from the above scenario, from the poor person I can only steal one dollar. Ergo you have profited more from the existence of government. It follows that you pay more. This notion is also only a couple of thousand years old.

3) You don't know anything about economic history. Over time in any non progressively taxed economy wealth coagulates and causes an increase in the income gap between rich and poor. Income redistribution has been used in most societies for the last few thousand years to keep this at a manageable level. What happens when they don't? A good example is the French revolution - when the poor have so little that it becomes economically vialble for them to kill the rich and take their stuff. This is also not good for the rich.

Good points. Your last point reminds me of the game Monopoly which was developed to show the eventual pitfall of unrestrained capitalism. With Monopoly, at least you can declare a winner and start the game over again.

Perhaps the OWS crowd need to adjust their strategy. They should simply hold up a sign that says "You Win! We Give Up!". Because that is basically what it has come down to. Many people got one shiatty property like "Baltic" and the Electric Utility but it is mortgaged and you know you won't even make it to Go again so you might as well park yourself on Park Place and refuse to roll the dice again.

vernonFL: My favorite Economist: Thorstein Veblen.

Indeed. Most economic activity is simply primate posturing.

rev. dave: The point I get from this is that our richest 1% are not taking any risks for their income. They are also not laboring for it, unless you consider counting your money labor. So we have the modern version of the landed aristocrats and nobles who "own" the serfs and don't like them speaking out of turn.

basically, yes. And that's not a bad way to put it either.

I alone am best: No jobs are created when the government takes all the rich peoples money!!

THIS IS WHAT LIBERALS/OWS TYPES ACTUALLY BELIEVE!!!!