Everyone should be in favor of reducing taxes on the "rich"

[Shogun]

I'll be back to address your posts fully tomorrow.

Until then... ENJOY


Mortgage crisis has Washington putting aside free-market ideology
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/07/business/07bailout.php


Detroit's sputtering Big Three turn to Washington for help
Detroit's sputtering Big Three turn to Washington for help

 

[Bern80]

I'll be back to address your posts fully tomorrow.

Until then... ENJOY


Mortgage crisis has Washington putting aside free-market ideology
Mortgage crisis has Washington putting aside free-market ideology - International Herald Tribune


Detroit's sputtering Big Three turn to Washington for help
Detroit's sputtering Big Three turn to Washington for help

This is fairly simple Shogun, for various reasons to be debated further, some people apparently aren't able to hack it in a free market economy. Focsuing on why would be a good starting point. Do you honestly believe it is because despite all these people using their full potential (and are they really uses all the resources available to them) some 'thing' is keeping them down? If so, what are these mysterious barriers that are keeping all these people that, for the sake of argument we are assuming but probably aren't, doing everything they can to make it?

 

[Shogun]

Of course. They are looking to maximize profits.

which, does not at all correlate with benefiting the society capitalists are stuck t like a tick on a dogs nutsack.


You're forgetting the part where workers are also consumers. Companies that charge too much for their products get undercut by competition and go out of business. Look at a list of "unstoppable" businesses that progressives were railing against 100 years ago. Guess what, almost none of them exist anymore, they were put out of business by other businesse who offered customers a better deal.


Oh, you mean like how we see OIL companies being undercut all the time? Bell LABS before the gov stepped in to split it up? Multi national conglomerates? Yea dude. THE PIPE DREAM WORKS! sure it does.

weather or not workers are consumer means little when their consumption ability is minimized while their income is a reduced cost of labor for a capitalist, yo. Look at the housing market. WHAT THE FUCK ARE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AND REALTORS DOING TO MAKE A SCRATCH IN THE CONSUMPTION OF GOODS WHILE THEIR MARKET IS STAGNANT DO TO CAPITALISTS IN BANKING?



They were in an economic funk for the better part of two decades. Then they were doing better for a couple of years, and now it's back to recession for them, most likely. They also pay exhorbitant prices for consumer goods, many Japanese people under the age of 40 have to live with their parents, etc.

yea.. I tellya.. NOHTING SAYS ECONOMIC RECESSION like dominating the shit out of our AUTO industry. Funny how freely capitalist use the word RECESSION when polishing the turd of their own bullshit theory. MOST LIKELY? Oh well.. thats convincing. And, please, don't confuse CULTURAL traditions with economic requirements. It's never been an aspect of their CULTURE to fly out of the house at 18 years of age. Maybe you should take the ethnocentrist goggles off.


The private oil companies don't have anywhere near the market share that state oil companies do. Also they aren't a monopoly. And they aren't interfering with solar panel companies. (Hint: there already is a Henry Ford style solar panel revolution going on, google Konarka or Nanosolar. A somewhat free market has responded to supply and demand. They could ramp up production a lot faster and probably could have brought this technology to fruition years sooner, with more capital.)


HA! yea.. I mean, ANY OLE DUDE can just go ahead and compete with SHELL! Deflecting criticism isn't really that impressive, dude. Oh, and just so you know, not everyone wears or NEEDS lipstick either so you can spare me the comparative profit margins between oil and cosmetics.


Speaking of oil monopolies, did you know that when Standard Oil went to court, their market share was 87%? And not 100%? Did you know that, by the time the company was broken up by our government, their market share was at 60% and falling? Even though they were relentlessly dropping prices on Kerosene and gasoline? Did you know that Rockefeller got tired of paying for insurance on his refineries, and pushed through a safety program so that he could stop paying it?

wow! 87%! Hell, that just SCREAMS "hey, come compete with me". Should I be impressed by your non sequiter?


We had cheap labor competition during the 50's and 60's, and we prospered. Sure, there were tariffs. But the price of labor in 3rd world countries more than makes up for it. So why wasn't our industrial base hollowed out?



CHEAP? in relation to the goods and services available? please. Indeed tarrifs. The price of labor in third world countries do NOT make up for anything and WE SEE THAT IN OUR PRODUCTION MARKETS. Indeed, our factories ARE being hollowed out when compared to an era where a breadwinner could support a family with a full time job in manufacturing.



It didn't start until Nixon took us off the last remnant of the gold standard in 1971. Not only did we immediately see inflation, but american industry went into decline. Thus we see the familiar statistics that it takes two incomes to provide what one income once did. Or the familiar lament that incomes for people without college degrees has stalled or declined. Or the huge trade deficit, which was like an elephant that appeared out of nowhere. You can thank the government and the quasi-private federal reserve for all of this.

thank you for your opinion on the root of the two income family. Blame nixon and the gold standard. That probably wont deflect the fact that we CURRENTLY see that outsourced tech jobs forces gen X techies into jobs at wal mart. That missing manufacturing for unskilled labor jobs have devalued the middle-lower class into pauper levels of SOL. Defelcting at the base standard of your capital doesn't validate the SYSTEM of capitalism in relation to the society that, once again, it leeches from like a tick on a dogs balls.

 

[Shogun]

Not quite as much anymore, but he was. (Not that it was a good thing or that I agree with everything he said.) As Nixon famously said, "We're all Keynesians now". He was as mainstream as mainstream gets, his ideas were behind much of the New Deal, and if you disagreed with him you were probably considered a crank. He's still well-regarded in leftish economics, just as Milton Friedman is the figurehead of most (but not all) on the right.

theorists are a dime a dozen. We STILL have psychotherapists trying to fix emotional problems with hypnotherapy. so what. Does a popular trend really indicate the accurate application of someones theory? This isn't about left or right politics. This is about validating a solid basic Standard of Living for Americans. We can talk about cognitive dissonance all day long but it won't invalidate the tangible evidence of a dog's mouth salivating to footsteps that they know will result in meat powder. Likewise, I'm not really interested in the name dropping.



Because they replaced direct income taxes with the stealth tax of borrowing and inflation. Make no mistake, the GOP is not a fan of lowering the government's burden. Government spending went up even faster than the democrats. Military spending is every bit as economically wasteful and harmful to the economy as social programs. Probably moreso, at least some forms of social spending are actually capital improvements (roads, education) which can help productivity (though the government often will provide them at a boondoggle cost).



fair enough. Im ready to reevaluate the budget. I think you'll find that a LOT of left leaning people are not trying to validate 500 dollar hammers.

 

[Shogun]

I have never argued there should be no regulation. I have never said our system is perfect. I have never said it is going to be all things to all people. I have said it is competition and in competition not everyone is gonna make it. it isn't perfect but it is the best system there is so far and as far as improving behavior it aqt the very least encourages personal responsiblity as oppossed to apathy by another system. Please point to another country that has a higher standard of living then we do.

it is your opinion that it is the best so far. I'd imagine that says a bitmore about your perspective than it does about the system itself. and, yes.. I see personal responsibility every time another corporation gets a bailout. Every time some capitalist lobbies a politician.

And our standard of liviing is the PRODUCT of regulated capitalism of the 50s. Your parents could afford the American Dream. THIS generation's dream is being normalized with a chinese and Mexican standard of living because your kind falls back on the same ole rhetorical bullshit excuses.


And, tell me what variables yuo want to use on comparative standard of living, dude.. MORE Canadians own their homes than in the US. MORE Swiss are covered with health care. If you hope to ignore that our economic situation is making our STANDARD OF LIVING WORSE by comparing the US with a beggar in fucking Bombay then spare me. Of COURSE we live better than a one legged prostitute in Calcutta. That doesn't make the normalization of our SOL with that of Mexico and China a smaller pill to swallow just so your kind can squeeze .002% more profits.

 

[Bern80]

Not quite as much anymore, but he was. (Not that it was a good thing or that I agree with everything he said.) As Nixon famously said, "We're all Keynesians now". He was as mainstream as mainstream gets, his ideas were behind much of the New Deal, and if you disagreed with him you were probably considered a crank. He's still well-regarded in leftish economics, just as Milton Friedman is the figurehead of most (but not all) on the right.

theorists are a dime a dozen. We STILL have psychotherapists trying to fix emotional problems with hypnotherapy. so what. Does a popular trend really indicate the accurate application of someones theory? This isn't about left or right politics. This is about validating a solid basic Standard of Living for Americans. We can talk about cognitive dissonance all day long but it won't invalidate the tangible evidence of a dog's mouth salivating to footsteps that they know will result in meat powder. Likewise, I'm not really interested in the name dropping.



Because they replaced direct income taxes with the stealth tax of borrowing and inflation. Make no mistake, the GOP is not a fan of lowering the government's burden. Government spending went up even faster than the democrats. Military spending is every bit as economically wasteful and harmful to the economy as social programs. Probably moreso, at least some forms of social spending are actually capital improvements (roads, education) which can help productivity (though the government often will provide them at a boondoggle cost).



fair enough. Im ready to reevaluate the budget. I think you'll find that a LOT of left leaning people are not trying to validate 500 dollar hammers.

I suggest you stick with me. Baron is way out of your league. Your answers are truly pathetic and so far removed from reality it's laughable.

 

[Bern80]

it is your opinion that it is the best so far. I'd imagine that says a bitmore about your perspective than it does about the system itself. and, yes.. I see personal responsibility every time another corporation gets a bailout. Every time some capitalist lobbies a politician.

Nice dodge. Try answering the question. Or are you not capable of that level of honesty?

And our standard of liviing is the PRODUCT of regulated capitalism of the 50s. Your parents could afford the American Dream. THIS generation's dream is being normalized with a chinese and Mexican standard of living because your kind falls back on the same ole rhetorical bullshit excuses.

You are essentially arguing that without governemnt are standard of living would not be what it is. That relies on a couple of assumptions that are unproven and for which no credible evidence really exists. First it would assume that withouth government intervention the free market would have turned into some monoplistic thing where not only one private entity owned everything, but was gouging people for the goods and services. It also assumes that people have little control in improving there standard of living. Let's assume that you're right and Paris Hilton is the rule to how people get rich. Even if true if she wants to stay that way eventually she is going to have to put in some effort of here own.

And, tell me what variables yuo want to use on comparative standard of living, dude.. MORE Canadians own their homes than in the US. MORE Swiss are covered with health care. If you hope to ignore that our economic situation is making our STANDARD OF LIVING WORSE by comparing the US with a beggar in fucking Bombay then spare me. Of COURSE we live better than a one legged prostitute in Calcutta. That doesn't make the normalization of our SOL with that of Mexico and China a smaller pill to swallow just so your kind can squeeze .002% more profits.

Inventory of assets would be one.

 

[editec]

I'm sorry, but it seems the GOP want it both ways. They say if Democrats get into office, they'll raise taxes and/or the cost of goods and services because if we raise taxes on companies, then they'll pass those costs on to us.

Well why did the cost of everything go up under the GOP's rule? In other words, why didn't the tax breaks to the rich work?

Bingo!

I guess gas would be $10 a gallon if we didn't give the rich that unfair tax break?

And if we don't make those unfair tax breaks permenant, gas will go up to $10 a gallon?

The GOP can't lose with this kind of spin.

They're right even when they are dead wrong.

And as long as our media continues to prtend that its doing its job presenting "both sides of the issue" our media allows the liars to FRAME THE DISCSSION such that nobody every gets to the real point.

 

[Shogun]

Nice dodge. Try answering the question. Or are you not capable of that level of honesty?

clearly, you did not read my answer. What variables do you want to compare? A capitalist hiding behind bullshit non sequiters pointing a finger about honesty? thats, forgive the pun, rich.



You are essentially arguing that without governemnt are standard of living would not be what it is. That relies on a couple of assumptions that are unproven and for which no credible evidence really exists. First it would assume that withouth government intervention the free market would have turned into some monoplistic thing where not only one private entity owned everything, but was gouging people for the goods and services. It also assumes that people have little control in improving there standard of living. Let's assume that you're right and Paris Hilton is the rule to how people get rich. Even if true if she wants to stay that way eventually she is going to have to put in some effort of here own.


No, Im essentially argueing that without regulation CAPITALISM would try to rationalize every reduction in the value of labor all the way as close to slavery as possible. Did or DID NOT Capitalism's early baby brother MERCENTILISM give us INDENTURED SERVANTS AND SLAVES? Are China's slave laborors NOT rationalized by American wal mart Capitalists? do UNIONS and WAGE PROTECTIONS DEVALUE FUCKING LABOR?

But, spare me your talk of credible evidence since we have just as much non-evidence that free market capitalism works for the benefit of our society. Hell, or just go ahsare it with a japanese auto worker who will die at 35 after working 70 hours a week in order to "compete".


yes. we see the efforts of silver spooners all the time, dude. I mean, why on earth did we even put a defintion to the WORD nepotism with all this silver spoon productivity all over the place?


Inventory of assets would be one.


ahh.. so cable TV is once again your standard. Clearly, lowered American SOLs should be happy since a begger in the ditch of Calcutta cant afford cable TV.


nice. And you wonder why the pendulum is swinging away from you.

let them eat cake, indeed.

 

[Shogun]

I suggest you stick with me. Baron is way out of your league. Your answers are truly pathetic and so far removed from reality it's laughable.

Hey, go tell it to the EVIDENCE i've posted, dude... hiding behind rhetoric and jargon like an octopus does ink doesn't erase the facts on the ground. Let the Barron believe in Phrenology.. works for me. So does laughing at your bullshit take on economics.

 

[Bern80]

Well why did the cost of everything go up under the GOP's rule? In other words, why didn't the tax breaks to the rich work?

How do tax breaks stop inflation?

And as long as our media continues to prtend that its doing its job presenting "both sides of the issue" our media allows the liars to FRAME THE DISCSSION such that nobody every gets to the real point.

Considering the media is liberally biased, you should be haveing a field day. When the media is biased your way and it still isn't reporting what you think is reality, you may want to look at your perception of reality as the problem.

 

[Shogun]

HAHAHA!

"liberal bias"

gosh.. thats the latest "sky is falling" line of the last decade, eh? Reality must have a liberal bias too!


[youtube]SZffPTyHGDk[/youtube]

 

[editec]

Not if income tax were removed as well.

Okay so you were talking about some kind of VAT tax.

Yes, the wealthy will end up paying an even smaller share of the taxes than they pay now in that case.

No way in hell the superwealthy purchase enough user end products for that plan to work.

Meanwhile under that system every cent every worker pays to buy essantials is taxed like crazy.

Nice system for people with disposalble income, but hell on those without that disposalble income.

How will it give the rich more disposable income but the wealthy less?

Because they don't buy enough stuff to make up the difference between what they pay in FICA now, and the system you propose.

And so what if they want to buy more assetts.

their newly found disposable income will go where it always goes...into stocks, bonds and real estate, Can you say BUBBLE?

It's a free fucking country. No other statement proves more that you would rather have mediocrity than incure the risk of the current system.

You so don't know what I want for this nation, sport. I really cannot understand that given that I spend so much ASCII describing it, but you are basically agruing with a straw man of your own devise, rather than with what I respresent.

On one hand you complain about the plight of the poor and on the other your arguing that people should not be allowed to attain a certain level of wealth.

No I don't.

Not much else to say accept to remind you that you are highly unqualified to tell me what my posts said or mean.

Okay that is half true, our system allows for large amounts of wealth to be made as oppossed to some form of more socialistic economy. It does not however come without risks.

That would be a "No shit, sherlock" moment, amigo.

It seems to be you and people of your mindset that somehow believe risk is a bad thing and should be legislated out of our lives.

Where do you get this crap? Certainly not from anything I've penned.

If you want to be able to make sure everyone is at the standard you set, just say so. If you want a system you are allowed to say this as much as we are going to allow you to have, just say so. If you want socialism, just say so. You are either tiptoeing around or don't realize that is essentially what you are arguing for.

I think I'll retain the right to say what I think rather than saying what you'd like to say, if you don't mind.

But do feel free to keep boxing with shadows if that suits you.

What else is their to believe about your position. If you believe as I believe that people have a considerable deal of control over their destiny, then you really can't argue what you're arguing.

I believe people have considerable control over their destinies within the scope of the society they live in. Of course statistically speaking considerably turns out to be a fairly modest amount of real control.

You do realize that someone in china has twice the statistcal change of making it to the upper classes of income as someone living in this nation, dont' you?

How do you explain that except that there are things outside of our control which manifest as significant?

You would have to believe as I believe that by in large the burden to succeed in this type of society and economy fall by in large on the individual.

Yes, we both believe that.

Now can you agree with me that success in society is ALSO highly dependent on where you START OUY in this society? Or do you think that the statistics about advancement in the classes is all just bullshit?

That being the case you should the rich as examples of people that were able to successfully compete in this type of society.

Some of them are, to be sure.

But a lot of those reasons you can see everyday. A lot of it goes to the mentality of our society and the things we think we need or poor choices we make. Look at the number of poor people that smoke and think of the money they could save if they didn't. Or simply haveing bills they don't need to have at the moment if their really interested in improveing themselves (internet, cable, etc.).

All true, all relevant, but not the ONLY deciding factor in what happens to people, sport.

Part of it would be repeal of income tax all together. 20% would be the total between state and federal income tax just as an example.

The aobe is why, when we get into these discussions DETAILS make all the difference.

Its all very well and good to talk about theoretical things, but in the final analysis we need details of people's policiy proposals to really evaluate them.

If everyone in the USA were really taxed 20% of their total incomes from WHATEVER SOURCES, if ALL tax loophles that advantage those with money so much, believe me when I tell you that NO SUPERWEALTHY person would be pleased with that policy.

If they couldn't write off their personal jets as legitimate business expenses, if they couldn't write off seminars.golf tournaments as legitimate tax writes offs, if they TRULY paid taxes on INCOME as the working lcasses do, they'd be screaming bloody fucking murder, pal.

Consider this.

Every day american working people who get a paycheck and work in a place drive to work.

They can't write that off, you know, unless they itemize deductions.

I know that seems like a silly thing to point out but do you have any idea how for many people the cost of getting to work represents a significant amount of the salaries?

So it's about DETAILS, Bern.

When it comes to proposing changes in tax policies, we need details before any of us can really understand the goodness or badness of any proposal.

You want a VAT tax? yeah that might be a workable plan.

Show me the plan in detail, not in theory, but in fact.

 

[Bern80]

Not if income tax were removed as well.

Okay so you were talking about some kind of VAT tax.

Yes, the wealthy will end up paying an even smaller share of the taxes than they pay now in that case.

No way in hell the superwealthy purchase enough user end products for that plan to work.

Meanwhile under that system every cent every worker pays to buy essantials is taxed like crazy.

Nice system for people with disposalble income, but hell on those without that disposalble income.

How do you figure? They still have to purchase the same necessities that poor people need to purchase and they often pay even more for them. There are whole companies that thrive on selling the rich $20 bottles of water. That isn't even figuring in the luxury items they purchase for themselves, six figure cars, big screen HD TVs, etc.

You so don't know what I want for this nation, sport. I really cannot understand that given that I spend so much ASCII describing it, but you are basically agruing with a straw man of your own devise, rather than with what I respresent.

No I don't.

Not much else to say accept to remind you that you are highly unqualified to tell me what my posts said or mean.

It doesn't matter. It is the reality of your argument.

That would be a "No shit, sherlock" moment, amigo.

And people failing at it is a risk. The question is it because they failed 'despite' their best efforts or is it because most refuse to hold themselves accountable for the position their in?

I believe people have considerable control over their destinies within the scope of the society they live in. Of course statistically speaking considerably turns out to be a fairly modest amount of real control.

That is quite simply incorrect. if you don't have control that means certain outcomes or goals are simply going to be impossible. We are striclty talking about wealth accumulation here. I can think of very few factors that make wealth attainment impossible. Factors will definatley make things easier or more difficult for some, but ultimately the ones level of success is only going to be limited by the choices they make.

You do realize that someone in china has twice the statistcal change of making it to the upper classes of income as someone living in this nation, dont' you?

How do you explain that except that there are things outside of our control which manifest as significant?

Perhaps they have different atitudes toward personal accountablility then we do.

Yes, we both believe that.

Now can you agree with me that success in society is ALSO highly dependent on where you START OUY in this society? Or do you think that the statistics about advancement in the classes is all just bullshit?

No success is not DEPENDANT on starting postion. It will make levels of success easier or harder.

All true, all relevant, but not the ONLY deciding factor in what happens to people, sport.

Then the underlying question remains. Is position more a factor of behavior or circumstance. If added up the columns for both the things that a poor is in control of and not control of which do think would be taller?

If they couldn't write off their personal jets as legitimate business expenses, if they couldn't write off seminars.golf tournaments as legitimate tax writes offs, if they TRULY paid taxes on INCOME as the working lcasses do, they'd be screaming bloody fucking murder, pal.

Again it is erroneous to assume that that is what constitutes the wealthy in this country and that there are large numbers of people that would constitute a majority taking advanatge of such loopholes. You are simply claiming that something is happening that probably isn't. Part of the problem again I think is who you think the majority of the rich are. I would suggest doing some real research on this group and who comprises it. i think you will be surprised.

When it comes to proposing changes in tax policies, we need details before any of us can really understand the goodness or badness of any proposal.

You want a VAT tax? yeah that might be a workable plan.

Show me the plan in detail, not in theory, but in fact.

There isn't a lot of detail to it. That's kind of the point. The problem with our current tax system is there are too many details in it. Government could have a say 15% sales tax on EVERYTHING at final point of sale. States could do the same.

 

[Shogun]

oh yes... we see ghetto trailer trash achieving 7 figure salaries ALL THE TIME!

Especially when compared with all those minimum wage sons and daughters of WEALTHY motherfuckers!


good grief, dude.

 

[Bern80]

oh yes... we see ghetto trailer trash achieving 7 figure salaries ALL THE TIME!

Especially when compared with all those minimum wage sons and daughters of WEALTHY motherfuckers!


good grief, dude.

Please point out where i said it happens all the time.

 

[Shogun]

You stated:

No success is not DEPENDANT on starting postion.

and im calling BULLSHIT.

 

[Bern80]

You stated:

No success is not DEPENDANT on starting postion.

and im calling BULLSHIT.

Which would mean the amount of effort one puts forth is irrelevant, which I would have to call bullshit on. Will wealth be more difficult to achieve for crack whore, ghetto boy? You bet. He has fewer initial resources to draw on that will make it more difficult for him to compete in a free market. Does that mean his destiny is written in stone before birth? Of course not. Ultimately his level of success can only be determined by him. The goal would be to get him an people like him better opportunities, which I have little problem with. Why does that need to involve taking down the rich?

 

[Zoomie1980]

Capitalism is currently FAILING our middle class. YOU may not give a fuck about the diminishing middle class from your lofty fucking perch up the food chain but plenty of those who've lost their jobs only to be told "hey, go work for 8 dollars at wal mart" feel otherwise.

Or, you can consider the total domination of Japan's auto market to our FAILING auto market. OR, you can consider the globalization excuse in the face of inflation. I posted a newsweek article all about it. enjoy.

Who in the middle class is hurting? 94% still have jobs. 90% are paying their mortgages on time. 82% are paying their credit card bills on time. The one's that are not are actually the very low end fringe of the middle class and have basically been caught living beyond their means.

If you still have a job and are making enough to pay your bills your only association with the recession is from watching TV, and that is over 90% of us.

600,000 jobs lost in the recession and roughly 425,000 have found new jobs since..... The other 175,000 will find new work within the next six months. 94% of the country is still working. So what's the problem?

 

[Zoomie1980]

I'm sorry, but it seems the GOP want it both ways. They say if Democrats get into office, they'll raise taxes and/or the cost of goods and services because if we raise taxes on companies, then they'll pass those costs on to us.

Well why did the cost of everything go up under the GOP's rule? In other words, why didn't the tax breaks to the rich work?

Bingo!



And as long as our media continues to prtend that its doing its job presenting "both sides of the issue" our media allows the liars to FRAME THE DISCSSION such that nobody every gets to the real point.

AGain, businesses will charge the maximum price they can at ANY time, regardless of the tax burden. If businesses are already charging all the market will bear and a tax increase comes along, the cannot not pass it on. What they do is cut R&D, cut out expansion plans, lay off those they can, and cut their dividend. And who hurts from that? The usual lot, that's who.