From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

[Epsilon Delta]

Darwinsim is a rather appropriate word. While not quite has harsh in a nutshell it is adapt or die. If you as an individual do not adapt to the hard ship or evolve of being on minumum wage you are going to be stuck there a while. You list excuse after excuse which only serves to keep people from discovering what they are really capable of.

Again (I mentioned this in some other thread), why don't you also advocate for the abolition of the Army? and the Police? or the Fire Department? Hell, shouldn't you be advocating the abolition of the state alltogether? If we're going to go through your route, then there is nothing that makes us weaker than having an army, a police or a state, or laws in general. Why have laws? Don't they make us weaker? Why should we be protected by the state? Laws, after all, protect people above what they otherwise would be able to protect themselves (In theory anyway). That must certainly ensure that the 'weak' will have better chances to survive, doesn't it? If you have hundreds of brigades of heavily armed personnel defending you, where's the incentive to be strong and clever to survive? Public Transportation? Certainly a tool of the weak, who should know better than to rely on the government to get around: They can't expect the rest of "us" to "pay" for "their" transportation- they should work hard to get a car or sink into poverty and have their entire lineage disappear. Once this happens, that all of these things are abolished, then we can start talking about survival of the fittest.

 

[jillian]

I think it is fairer way to disribute taxes because it is based on what you consume rather than what you earn.

Because, of course, the rich, who spend only a teeny percentage of their income shouldn't be taxed; while poor people who spend ALL their income to survive, should pay the greatest proportion of taxes....

what a mess you are...

 

[Bern80]

Because, of course, the rich, who spend only a teeny percentage of their income shouldn't be taxed; while poor people who spend ALL their income to survive, should pay the greatest proportion of taxes....

what a mess you are...

That's one convenient way tp spin it. However such a tax would still be very progressive. In actual dollars the rich spend far more than the poor thus they would still be supplying the bulk of the tax revenue.

 

[Bern80]

Again (I mentioned this in some other thread), why don't you also advocate for the abolition of the Army? and the Police? or the Fire Department? Hell, shouldn't you be advocating the abolition of the state alltogether? If we're going to go through your route, then there is nothing that makes us weaker than having an army, a police or a state, or laws in general. Why have laws? Don't they make us weaker? Why should we be protected by the state? Laws, after all, protect people above what they otherwise would be able to protect themselves (In theory anyway). That must certainly ensure that the 'weak' will have better chances to survive, doesn't it? If you have hundreds of brigades of heavily armed personnel defending you, where's the incentive to be strong and clever to survive? Public Transportation? Certainly a tool of the weak, who should know better than to rely on the government to get around: They can't expect the rest of "us" to "pay" for "their" transportation- they should work hard to get a car or sink into poverty and have their entire lineage disappear. Once this happens, that all of these things are abolished, then we can start talking about survival of the fittest.

There is a slight difference between anarchy and what constitutues reasonble responsibility on the part of the individual.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

There is a slight difference between anarchy and what constitutues reasonble responsibility on the part of the individual.

Care to draw that line, specifically? Just trying to work out the kinks for our glorious revolution to abolish the Nation State. You and me, Bern. We'll free the people!

 

[jillian]

That's one convenient way tp spin it. However such a tax would still be very progressive. In actual dollars the rich spend far more than the poor thus they would still be supplying the bulk of the tax revenue.

We're not talking about actual dollars, are we? We're talking about proportion of income.

And let's not forget about dividends and other passive income which would NEVER be taxed at all...

I don't understand people who vote against their own self-interest.

 

[Charles_Main]

.

I don't understand people who vote against their own self-interest.

I guess it depends on what you think your interests are. I myself am in a lower income bracket, yet I recognize that taxes on the rich tend to lead to less Jobs for us all. As it is the rich who provide the jobs. I also see that taxing Cooperations only leads to higher prices for the goods I buy.

I think part of your problem is you just think anyone who has a different take than your own, is just stupid. Or at least it sure seems that way by many of your comments.

 

[jillian]

I guess it depends on what you think your interests are. I myself am in a lower income bracket, yet I recognize that taxes on the rich tend to lead to less Jobs for us all. As it is the rich who provide the jobs. I also see that taxing Cooperations only leads to higher prices for the goods I buy.

I think part of your problem is you just think anyone who has a different take than your own, is just stupid. Or at least it sure seems that way by many of your comments.

That's a proven fallacy... money to the rich means more money to the rich... policies that protect and support a strong middle class are what leads to jobs...

And no, the "rich" don't provide the jobs... the middle class does through a vital economy. Have you looked at the jobs that are drying up and the people being hurt? It's the MIDDLE CLASS....

And no, it's not that I don't see the utility of different ideas. But I think clinging to failed ideas IS stupid. Don't you?

 

[Bern80]

We're not talking about actual dollars, are we? We're talking about proportion of income.

And let's not forget about dividends and other passive income which would NEVER be taxed at all...

I don't understand people who vote against their own self-interest.

Dividends are actually taxed twice, not never.

Why do you want to define it in terms of proportion of income. Perhaps to give the impression that the rich are going to get some huge tax break? Even though in reality the rich would still be paying the bulk of taxes.

How about the converse question, should the poor have to pay taxes at all?

 

[AllieBaba]

Yup, and if you keep destroying the economy at the top, by butchering the corporations and industries, you'll continue to see jobs disappearing.

Why is it that libs don't get that basic concept? Eliminate the logging industry...you're going to eliminate jobs. Eliminate the oil industry...you're going to eliminate jobs. Eliminate the land development industry...you're going to eliminate jobs.

Fucking idiots.

 

[Ravi]

yet I recognize that taxes on the rich tend to lead to less Jobs for us all.

How exactly?

 

[Charles_Main]

That's a proven fallacy... money to the rich means more money to the rich... policies that protect and support a strong middle class are what leads to jobs...

And no, the "rich" don't provide the jobs... the middle class does through a vital economy. Have you looked at the jobs that are drying up and the people being hurt? It's the MIDDLE CLASS....

And no, it's not that I don't see the utility of different ideas. But I think clinging to failed ideas IS stupid. Don't you?

Yes I do, I just think you are the one doing it. We are clearly never going to convince each other of anything on this issue.

You call what I said a fallacy, yet as usual you provide nothing to back it up. Seems rather typical behavior from you.

 

[chopcrazy]

ONLY 32% of Americans can afford college and graduate from college Chop?

College has gone up each and every year during the Bush administration, DOUBLE DIGITS....it is unaffordable by many, even with gvt pell grants and the such.

25% of all minimum wage earners are women with children, and yes even married women with children...mainly because they regard rearing their children as important.

What would the wealthy do without their maids, their lawn man, their waitresses to serve them when they go out to dinner, or their handyman, or their pool cleaners, or the clerks in stores where they buy their clothes or their food, or the dry cleaning clerk where they clean their clothes etc?

And SO WHAT if some are teens? When i was a teen and worked, minimum wage was worth 30% more than minimum wage now....I could buy 30% more with my minimum wage than children working today...why is that okay?

you may not have realized that so few americans are college grads?

you may also realize that good jobs, that pay well, are limited...many have been shipped overseas and many companies are just not paying what they used to or they are, but the one person kept in the higher paying job is doing the work that 2 people used to do, to get that money.

All may seem rosey to you, but if it is delved in to, you will see that it is much more complicated than one would think....beginning with the poor not getting offered the same level of good education as in the suberbs in elementary and high school because schools are primarily paid for by property taxes, which are minimal in lower pay scale areas...

these are not excuses, these things are facts that need to be considered and addressed, when looking at the WHOLE picture imo.

Care

When you say 32%, is that 32% of those that desire to go to college but cannot afford it? How much aid is available? If a person wanted college, why can't they work 20 hours a week to supplement the available financial aid. My brother spent six years in the navy and he will be using GI Bill benefits. He will get about $1,300/month for school which is sufficient to pay for books and tuition. America gives people the opportunity but people have to work for the success.

Which state schools have gone up 10%+ each year? State colleges in Texas have not. Here is an article by the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/23/education/23tuition.html) which conflicts with your source. When I went to school in the 90s, I had friends that moved from California and Massachusetts because those state schools were more expensive than Texas state schools. What prevents people from moving?

You will find some states where property taxes are allocated from the high value areas to the low value areas...a.k.a 'Robin Hood'...which mitigates the your point about the level of education. Nothing prevents all states from doing this. Though, just because a school gets the same level of funding does not mean the school gets the same talent level of teachers. Exactly what is the root cause for imbalanced education and what would be the best corrective course of action? Who is/should be responsible for a child's education - society or family (parents)?

 

[AllieBaba]

And yet more people are going to college than ever before. Hmmmmmm.....

 

[editec]

There is another point to reevaluating our tax code. The idea behind this is not to give government even more money. As I said before we need a system that requires them to prioritize, that requires them to work within a budget.

Not to worry, Bern...the Democrats are coming.

No more empty talk, talk, talk about fiscal responsibility while pissing away money on senseless wars.

Maybe with 8 or 16 years, they'll be able to get us to the point where we don't have to borrow billions from the Chinese every month just to keep going.

 

[AllieBaba]

I know, they've traditionally been so great at fixing the economy.

 

[Bern80]

We're not talking about actual dollars, are we? We're talking about proportion of income.

And let's not forget about dividends and other passive income which would NEVER be taxed at all...

I don't understand people who vote against their own self-interest.

Self-Interest is an interesting way to put it. Is it in my self-interest to let government make things easier for me? Initially I think one would answer yes. Just give us your money in taxes and we will take care of you. We'll provide healthcare, unemployment assistance, education, hell we'll even bail you out when you bought that house you couldn't afford. sounds great. But is that really in my self-interest? Am I going to grow, take responsibility, make better choices when the things I've mentioned don't encourage that kind of behavior?

 

[Bern80]

Care to draw that line, specifically? Just trying to work out the kinks for our glorious revolution to abolish the Nation State. You and me, Bern. We'll free the people!

I don't have a good answer for that. The answer I do have is long and complicated. Most of it is behavioral in nature. As to governments though, I don't have a problem living under one.

I have a problem with government babysitting people from cradle to grave. No we aren't there yet, but that is the direction we are headed.

As I said it is largely about behavior. For example, some people simply refuse to believe that it isn't some evil force or corporate american or whatever that has created this division of few haves and and many have nots. It's that from a behavioral stand point there just aren't that many people who are wiling to put in the effort it takes to become rich. That is because behavior is learned. We have passed the point in our country where we were in survival mode. We now recognize basically the effort it takes to survive. Once that threshold his reached, now we're into simply improving standard of living. You define what is acceptable to you by the extent to which you will work to improve. While many people may want more the desire is outweighed by the lack of motivation to actually gain more.

The problem I have with government where behavior is involved is again it is learned. The mortgage bail out is a perfect example. It directly undermines the behavior we would want potential home buyers to exhibit. We would want them to not buy outside of their means, we would want them to not take risky mortgages. We would want them to learn from the negative consequnces of doing those things. Instead the government has decided to bail them out.

We learn from the things we experience. We become stronger through adversity and challenges. Anything that prevents us from doing so weakens us.

 

[Chris]

I don't have a good answer for that. The answer I do have is long and complicated. Most of it is behavioral in nature. As to governments though, I don't have a problem living under one.

I have a problem with government babysitting people from cradle to grave. No we aren't there yet, but that is the direction we are headed.

As I said it is largely about behavior. For example, some people simply refuse to believe that it isn't some evil force or corporate american or whatever that has created this division of few haves and and many have nots. It's that from a behavioral stand point there just aren't that many people who are wiling to put in the effort it takes to become rich. That is because behavior is learned. We have passed the point in our country where we were in survival mode. We now recognize basically the effort it takes to survive. Once that threshold his reached, now we're into simply improving standard of living. You define what is acceptable to you by the extent to which you will work to improve. While many people may want more the desire is outweighed by the lack of motivation to actually gain more.

The problem I have with government where behavior is involved is again it is learned. The mortgage bail out is a perfect example. It directly undermines the behavior we would want potential home buyers to exhibit. We would want them to not buy outside of their means, we would want them to not take risky mortgages. We would want them to learn from the negative consequnces of doing those things. Instead the government has decided to bail them out.

We learn from the things we experience. We become stronger through adversity and challenges. Anything that prevents us from doing so weakens us.

The mortgage bailout is set up to help the mortgage companies not the borrowers.

 

[AllieBaba]

The primary problem with government subsidies and assistance is that you are paying money to people/corporations/whatever for making bad decisions. You cannot eliminate a problem by rewarding it, at any level. When your child takes all of his allowance money and loses it after investing in a scam or gambling with friends....do you replace his allowance, or do you say, "Gosh, that was a really bad decision. I'll bet you don't make that mistake again." When a child skips school do you do his homework for him and excuse his absence...or even better, attend his classes in his place? No, of course not, because that is rewarding bad behavior.

So if people come into this country illegally, or they have children out of wedlock, or they become addicted to drugs, or they enter into ill-advised mortgages...why on earth would we suspend our good sense and give them money?????