Next Up: a "Flat Tax" for the Rich

[georgephillip]

Wow...Two cheap strawmen in a row.

C'mon....Go for the hat trick!

Well..it basically isn't..

But now that we are at 50 states, close to 300 million people, a 13 trillion dollar economy, over 700 military bases worldwide, a standing army over 500k strong, 5000 nukes, a navy bigger then all of the navys in the world, combined, roads, bridges, electrical grids, airports, seaports, public transportation systems, water systems, and hooks into every financial system in the world; what kind of small, "limited", "gubmint" do you propose the manage all that?

Norquist's starving the "beast" and Friedman's trickle down have failed miserably.

Oh no sir! Trickle down works just as it was designed for the middle class. There has been immense trickle down.

It is all warm..............and yellow.

Do you believe it's hyperbole (or inaccurate) to say that globalization was never about raising third world living standards as much as it was about lowering standards for the US middle class?

If you went looking for "smoking gun" documents from the Reagan era that would prove this, where would you start?

 

[Toro]

Do you believe it's hyperbole (or inaccurate) to say that globalization was never about raising third world living standards as much as it was about lowering standards for the US middle class?

Yes. It is inaccurate hyperbole.

 

[Toro]

Show me. Show me a graph of economic activity that shows tax cuts work. The Kennedy tax cuts don't show it. There were no Reagan tax cuts. Clinton increased taxes, and of course the Bush tax cuts speak for themselves.

What do you mean by "works?"

There is a fair amount of empirical evidence that lower corporate tax rates work extremely well, if by "work" you mean increased investment, economic growth and tax revenues. There are several papers over at NBER making this conclusion. Lower royalty rates on natural resources also work this way.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you believe it's hyperbole (or inaccurate) to say that globalization was never about raising third world living standards as much as it was about lowering standards for the US middle class?

Yes. It is inaccurate hyperbole.

To what do you attribute the decline in US middle class living standards since the mid 70s?

Capitalism's Paradox of Accumulation?

 

[Trajan]

Why should the government place a value judgment on sources of income?

A low flat tax for everyone combined with shrinking the size of government would benefit everyone except for the blood sucking parasite who feed off of the government picking winners and losers.

Why should the FIRE sector get a free lunch from those who work for a living?

Can you name a more obnoxious "blood sucking parasite" than Goldman Sachs (the Pentagon, possibly)?

"The flat tax is supposed to be accompanied by a European-style regressive value-added tax (VAT). By taxing 'value,' it essentially falls on labor – as in 'the labor theory of value.'

"The tax does not fall on 'empty' pricing in excess of value – what the classical economists termed 'economic rent,' that element of price (and income) that has no counterpart in actual cost of production (ultimately reducible to labor) but is a pure free lunch: land rent, monopoly rent, interest and other financial fees, and insurance premiums.

"This economic rent is the major return to wealth.

"It is grounded in the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector."

Flat Tax

Vat?...I'll say this once. *uck a VAT. No way jose.

 

[georgephillip]

Any thoughts on FAIR TAX?

From November 2008:

"A proposed 23-cent national sales tax, the Fair Tax would replace the current federal system of taxation -- meaning no income tax and no Social Security tax.

"That means power to the people, because, first of all, they get their entire paycheck. Secondly, they determine the amount of tax they pay by the decisions they make on their purchases."

 

[ThePatriot]

A FAIR TAX seems more "fair" to all workers, however with such a high spending tax wouldn't people be more likely to sit on their money rather than spend it? This could possibly lead to increased prices and likely inflation. Similar to the housing market, prices would rise while monetary value would likely remain the same or decrease.

 

[caela]

This taxless, governmentless, society you speak of is most interesting. Does it come with people sporting mohawks, dressed in black leather, riding around the desert on crudely fashioned motorcars and bikes fighting for oil?

Typically weak attempt at the strawman, sport...Even for you.

Just because I'm against bloated, expensive, overbearing and micromanaging gubmint doesn't mean that I'm for none at all.

Try again.

It's a necessary evil if a society is to survive. The Founders gave a present to us and let us decide how much is too much. And if these cretins would bother to read the Federalist Papers, or the Anti Federalists...they'd see it.

Now see your problem there is that it requires them to read (not farm that nasty chore off to some aid) and requires them to then comprehend what was read. Don't you know that is asking too much from a politician???

 

[Toro]

Do you believe it's hyperbole (or inaccurate) to say that globalization was never about raising third world living standards as much as it was about lowering standards for the US middle class?

Yes. It is inaccurate hyperbole.

To what do you attribute the decline in US middle class living standards since the mid 70s?

Capitalism's Paradox of Accumulation?

I attribute your assessment of the middle class's standard of living to be inaccurate. The middle class has not seen a decline in living standards. That is patently incorrect. What has happened is that the middle class has not grown as fast as the upper class, but that is far different than a decline.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/08-09/income.pdf

 

[Trajan]

Yes. It is inaccurate hyperbole.

To what do you attribute the decline in US middle class living standards since the mid 70s?

Capitalism's Paradox of Accumulation?

I attribute your assessment of the middle class's standard of living to be inaccurate. The middle class has not seen a decline in living standards. That is patently incorrect. What has happened is that the middle class has not grown as fast as the upper class, but that is far different than a decline.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/08-09/income.pdf

its always a mystery to some when they discover that we have an upwardly mobile lower and middle class.

 

[georgephillip]

Dismiss this comment as anecdotal if you will; however, as someone who has worked for most of five decades at minimum and near-minimum wage jobs, I can tell you a single minimum wage job in the 70s enabled me to pay rent on a new one bedroom apartment (about $175 - $190/month) in those days and drive and maintain a six year-old car.

I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom apartment or car of any age since 1993.

From my vantage point trickle down is just another lie the rich tell.

 

[Toro]

Dismiss this comment as anecdotal if you will; however, as someone who has worked for most of five decades at minimum and near-minimum wage jobs, I can tell you a single minimum wage job in the 70s enabled me to pay rent on a new one bedroom apartment (about $175 - $190/month) in those days and drive and maintain a six year-old car.

I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom apartment or car of any age since 1993.

From my vantage point trickle down is just another lie the rich tell.

I'm not sure what your education status is but white uneducated males have seen their real incomes decline over the past 40 years.

 

[georgephillip]

High school graduate with two years of junior college and six months at Cal Berkeley.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Dismiss this comment as anecdotal if you will; however, as someone who has worked for most of five decades at minimum and near-minimum wage jobs, I can tell you a single minimum wage job in the 70s enabled me to pay rent on a new one bedroom apartment (about $175 - $190/month) in those days and drive and maintain a six year-old car.

I haven't been able to afford a one bedroom apartment or car of any age since 1993.

From my vantage point trickle down is just another lie the rich tell.

Gotta tell ya, if anyone has worked 40+ years at "near minimum wage" is not doing their due diligence. No one I have ever come into contact with, save for a few has ever been "satisfied" with just "getting by".
It is no one else's fault when an individual makes a conscious choice to remain at the lower end of the economic scale.
Human nature dictates we always strive to improve our station.
This is where I get to "no one owes anything to anyone."
I once worked in an office environment. There was a strict hierarchy that to me made no sense. One person in a supervisory position was in that position for over ten years. There were younger and much more ambitious people under her rank that wanted to advance, but they couldn't without transferring out of the department. Due to company policy those people were stuck. To me that is illogical. If a person wants to remain stagnant, they should step aside.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you believe that killing eight or nine innocent Muslims for every insurgent is making this country safer?

Do you think anyone on Wall Street should profit from killing the innocents or the insurgents?

A loaded pigeonhole question.
Your query assumes these things are reality.
Not happening.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you believe it's hyperbole (or inaccurate) to say that globalization was never about raising third world living standards as much as it was about lowering standards for the US middle class?

Yes. It is inaccurate hyperbole.

To what do you attribute the decline in US middle class living standards since the mid 70s?

Capitalism's Paradox of Accumulation?

there has been no decline in living standards for those who have applied themselves in a responsible manner.

 

[georgephillip]

Do you believe that killing eight or nine innocent Muslims for every insurgent is making this country safer?

Do you think anyone on Wall Street should profit from killing the innocents or the insurgents?

A loaded pigeonhole question.
Your query assumes these things are reality.
Not happening.

Since World War I civilians have come to bear the brunt of all casualties in war. Prior to the advent of air power, it's my understanding, kill ratios were 10:1 military personnel to civilians.

Since then there's been a nearly perfect inversion and today 10 civilians die for every combatant.

Since the end of WWII the US military has killed millions of civilians from Korea to Kosovo and the US investor class has been one of the principle beneficiaries.

"COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

"First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian 'collateral damage.'

"War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc.

"The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side.

"Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as 'accidental' or 'unavoidable.'

"Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites.

"Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments).

"In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

"Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as 'terrorism,' 'atrocities against civilians,' or 'ethnic cleansing,' but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies.

"If a country has the right to 'end' a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists?

"Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition 'defensive,' but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition 'offensive.'"

 

[thereisnospoon]

Do you believe that killing eight or nine innocent Muslims for every insurgent is making this country safer?

Do you think anyone on Wall Street should profit from killing the innocents or the insurgents?

A loaded pigeonhole question.
Your query assumes these things are reality.
Not happening.

Since World War I civilians have come to bear the brunt of all casualties in war. Prior to the advent of air power, it's my understanding, kill ratios were 10:1 military personnel to civilians.

Since then there's been a nearly perfect inversion and today 10 civilians die for every combatant.

Since the end of WWII the US military has killed millions of civilians from Korea to Kosovo and the US investor class has been one of the principle beneficiaries.

"COMMON THEMES

Some common themes can be seen in many of these U.S. military interventions.

"First, they were explained to the U.S. public as defending the lives and rights of civilian populations. Yet the military tactics employed often left behind massive civilian 'collateral damage.'

"War planners made little distinction between rebels and the civilians who lived in rebel zones of control, or between military assets and civilian infrastructure, such as train lines, water plants, agricultural factories, medicine supplies, etc.

"The U.S. public always believe that in the next war, new military technologies will avoid civilian casualties on the other side.

"Yet when the inevitable civilian deaths occur, they are always explained away as 'accidental' or 'unavoidable.'

"Second, although nearly all the post-World War II interventions were carried out in the name of "freedom" and "democracy," nearly all of them in fact defended dictatorships controlled by pro-U.S. elites.

"Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments).

"In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking.

"Third, the U.S. always attacked violence by its opponents as 'terrorism,' 'atrocities against civilians,' or 'ethnic cleansing,' but minimized or defended the same actions by the U.S. or its allies.

"If a country has the right to 'end' a state that trains or harbors terrorists, would Cuba or Nicaragua have had the right to launch defensive bombing raids on U.S. targets to take out exile terrorists?

"Washington's double standard maintains that an U.S. ally's action by definition 'defensive,' but that an enemy's retaliation is by definition 'offensive.'"

If not for the military you hate, you'd be speaking German right now and quite possibly not even be on the planet.
So shut the fuck up!

 

[georgephillip]

If I wasn't possibly on the planet, would I still have to learn German?

What's your take on this:

"Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

US Constitution