Obama's plan is to redistribute the wealth.

[DiveCon]

Some of the most blatently corrupt goverments on earth have been very local goverments.

Also wouldn't the argument be that the rich still pay too high a share of local taxes?

You and I both know it would.

yeah, like in Chicago

 

[editec]

I have no problem with supply side economics.

Sadly, our society seems to have forgotten that the working class is an important feature of the supply side.

Our industrial masters bought permission (from our pols) to fire American workers and import foreign made products into our society.

Likewise the usary masters bought permission at very nearly the same time to charge very high rates of interest on debts.

This nation was under no obligation to allow that. That policy ran counter to over 200 years of trade and usuary policies which made this nation, and its people, the wealthiest nation and people on earth.

The American people and the nation itself has effectively and subtley been sold out, folks.

Sold out for a higher profit margin by the very class that was originally made wealthy working behind the protection this nation provided for them, and still provides for them to this day.

We are on a path to becoming a third world nation.

You know that a third world nation really is, don't you?

Its a nation with essantially no middle class.

The whole FREE TRADE and USARY insanity was a fundamental rewrite of our social contract and this nation is going down because of it.

This latest economic meltdown, at it roots, isn't a problem of too much liquidity, it was a problem whose roots are a poorly paid working class forced to borrow money from the money lenders at absurdly high rates of interest.

This predatory usary problem actually causes great empires to fall as it enslaves the populations.

It damned near destroyed the Greek civilization until the Greeks changed their laws regarding debts obligations,

And after they changed those predatory usary laws, you know what happened?

The GOLDEN AGE of GREECE happened.

But hey, what do I know?

I still don't even know that greed is good, right?

Some of you might find this interesting. It's from an 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

In Athens about the time of Solon's legislation (594 B.C.) the bulk of the population, who had originally been small proprietors or metayers, became gradually indebted to the rich to such an extent that they were practically slaves.

Those who still kept their property nominally were in the position of Irish cottiers: they owed more than they could pay, and stone pillars erected on their land showed the amount of the debts and the names of the lenders.
Usury had given all the power of the state to a small plutocracy.

The remedy which Solon adopted was of a kind that we are accustomed to consider as purely modern. In the first place, it is true that according to ancient practice he proclaimed a general seisachtheia, or shaking off of burdens: he cancelled all the debts made on the security of the land or the person of the debtor. This measure alone would, however, have been of little service had he not at the same time enacted that henceforth no [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]loans[/color][/color] could be made on the bodily security of the debtor, and the creditor was confined to a share of the property.

The consequence of this simple but effective reform was that Athens was never again disturbed by the agitation of insolvent debtors. Solon left the rate of interest to be determined by free contract, and sometimes the rate was exceedingly high, but none of the evils so generally prevalent in antiquity were experienced.

 

[jreeves]

Cutting taxes with a record deficit.

Great idea....

ReaganBushDebt.org

Here is the board spamster, as long as you are below the Laffer's curve. A reduction in taxes will produce increased revenues, much like what happened with the Bush tax cuts. Of course, the increased revenues were spent......

 

[Chris]

Here is the board spamster, as long as you are below the Laffer's curve. A reduction in taxes will produce increased revenues, much like what happened with the Bush tax cuts. Of course, the increased revenues were spent......

I suggest you read "Our real national security disaster" in the politics section.

 

[jreeves]

I suggest you read "Our real national security disaster" in the politics section.

I suggest you look at the following graph....

 

[AVG-JOE]

Taxation, like abortion, is almost equal parts emotion and logic. Logically taxation is needed to support the .gov. Emotionally, taxation is theft unless it is willingly given. Elimination of the Income Tax and replacement with either a national sales tax or a national property tax satisfies both logic and emotion.

The only reason taxes aren't voluntary is that rich assholes and poor assholes alike wouldn't pay them if they were.

We have two and only two choices - Mandate taxes by threat of force or kill off all of the assholes.

I suppose a third option is to forgo working together to build public infrastructure to share and defend ourselves, but that kind of pure capitalism seems like a stupid way for us humans to share this world.

-Joe

 

[pegwinn]

The only reason taxes aren't voluntary is that rich assholes and poor assholes alike wouldn't pay them if they were. I didn't say voluntary, I said willingly given. A sales tax is not voluntary, but by making a purchase you are willingly forking over the money.

We have two and only two choices - Mandate taxes by threat of force or kill off all of the assholes. Taxes are already mandated by threats and coercion. And the assholes are smart enough to know the loopholes not available to your or I. Instead, a National Sales Tax or a National Property Tax can close the loopholes, preserve your privacy, and still fund the .gov. Simple really is better in most cases.

I suppose a third option is to forgo working together to build public infrastructure to share and defend ourselves, but that kind of pure capitalism seems like a stupid way for us humans to share this world. Now you are just being silly.

-Joe -Phil

It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.

 

[N4mddissent]

It's just as immoral to soak the rich as it is to pillage the poor.

Seriously.

you're saying that taking 10% of the money out of someone's pocket who is struggling to make ends meet, perhaps causing them to have to move to a smaller apartment or can't by healthier food for their kids or maybe have to reduce their medical coverage if not drop it altogether is morally equivalent to a multi-millionaire paying 40% in taxes and the effect being he has to settle for 6 houses rather than buy that 7th.

 

[pegwinn]

Seriously. Yep, Seriously.

you're saying that taking 10% of the money out of someone's pocket who is struggling to make ends meet, perhaps causing them to have to move to a smaller apartment or can't by healthier food for their kids or maybe have to reduce their medical coverage if not drop it altogether is morally equivalent to a multi-millionaire paying 40% in taxes and the effect being he has to settle for 6 houses rather than buy that 7th. Robin Hood was a crook who has been romanticized. The rich are not the enemy, the system is the enemy. It's not hard.

The following bears repeating:

Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
The tax system is the enemy and the rich are the scapegoat.

On this thread alone I have proposed a national sales or property tax as a solution to the class warfare and the encroachment of the .gov on your civil liberties. Yet, you insist on demonizing the successful and attempting to impose by force your vision of what is moral and just without addressing solutions that allow everyone to win except the politicians.

It isn't my fault that someone is poor. Nor is it bill gates fault that I and my wife work two jobs each, and collect a retirement pension, and still fall in under 100K. Trust me I know exactly what the working middle class is all about. And yet, I don't begrudge Mr Gates his success.

 

[DiveCon]

Seriously.

you're saying that taking 10% of the money out of someone's pocket who is struggling to make ends meet, perhaps causing them to have to move to a smaller apartment or can't by healthier food for their kids or maybe have to reduce their medical coverage if not drop it altogether is morally equivalent to a multi-millionaire paying 40% in taxes and the effect being he has to settle for 6 houses rather than buy that 7th.

seriously, you CANT soak the rich
they pass those taxes onto everyone else

 

[Walkabout Jones]

What I find confusing is the equivocation of socialism and communism being the same thing. If socialism was communism, we'd call it communism, wouldn't we? Socialism is an entirely more moderate political philosophy--really a middle-road between the scourages of communism and the excesses of capitalism.

When we look at our friends in Scandanavia, with their good health, high literacy rates, excellent standards of living, where exactly is the problem? I don't hear a lot of pissed off Scandanavians complaining about taxes. Their society runs smoother, their crime rates are lower, people are happier.

Nobody wants communism, or any authoritarian rule for that matter. But an efficiently run government that attends to the needs of its citizens? Hells yeah! And if private enterprise isn't capable or willing to do a good job of it, somebody has to fill that void. If not government, then who?

 

[elvis]

What I find confusing is the equivocation of socialism and communism being the same thing. If socialism was communism, we'd call it communism, wouldn't we? Socialism is an entirely more moderate political philosophy--really a middle-road between the scourages of communism and the excesses of capitalism.

When we look at our friends in Scandanavia, with their good health, high literacy rates, excellent standards of living, where exactly is the problem? I don't hear a lot of pissed off Scandanavians complaining about taxes. Their society runs smoother, their crime rates are lower, people are happier.

Nobody wants communism, or any authoritarian rule for that matter. But an efficiently run government that attends to the needs of its citizens? Hells yeah! And if private enterprise isn't capable or willing to do a good job of it, somebody has to fill that void. If not government, then who?

I wonder if you could back up the correlation between socialism and low crime rates.
Also, communism and authoritarianism do not necessarily go hand in hand, I don't believe.

Look forward to more dialogue.

 

[DavidS]

There is no debate. While communism and socialism are intriguing to study, neither economic theory allows for freedom. The only free economic theory in existence is capitalism. Everyone is free to do as they wish. America was founded upon the idea of freedom.

 

[Richard-H]

The following bears repeating:

Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
The tax system is the enemy and the rich are the scapegoat.

Nonsense. If everyone's justifyable wealth is equal to the economic contribution that each of them have made to society, then the 'wealthy' are a bunch of thieves. They have universally accummulated their wealth by depriving working people of the wealth which they deserve.

Underpaying people is THIEVERY.

 

[Walkabout Jones]

I hear people falling into "either/or" thinking. European countries are hybrids. Capitalism does just fine in Europe--as the Euro's current exchange rate proves.

And America is ALREADY a hybrid----our police, firefighters, mail carriers, public schools, none of these are private enterprises. The question isn't whether we should be socialist in some respects (because we already are) but the extend to which it should go?

I vote for a higher standard of living.

 

[elvis]

Nonsense. If everyone's justifyable wealth is equal to the economic contribution that each of them have made to society, then the 'wealthy' are a bunch of thieves. They have universally accummulated their wealth by depriving working people of the wealth which they deserve.

Underpaying people is THIEVERY.

didn't carnegie give all his money away? underpaying? you don't believe in whatever the market bears? how, then, should wages be determined?

 

[Richard-H]

There is no debate. While communism and socialism are intriguing to study, neither economic theory allows for freedom. The only free economic theory in existence is capitalism. Everyone is free to do as they wish. America was founded upon the idea of freedom.

Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right.

America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.

 

[elvis]

Nothing in the Constitution or Declaration of Independance cites a right to total economic freedom. It is not a inalienable right.

America was founded on the idea of equality, democracy and personal rights, not economic rights. It doesn't take much to realize that one person's economic freedom means another person's slavery.

don't take this the wrong way, but that resembles Karl Marx. Do you advocate Karl Marx?

 

[Toro]

The Bush administration is already re-distributing the wealth of taxpayers to the bondholders of banks, investment companies, Freddie and Fannie, AIG, and so on.

So what's the difference?

 

[Care4all]

The following bears repeating:

Theft is theft whether it is done by a thug or a congress critter.
Soaking the rich is nothing more than class warfare.
The tax system is the enemy and the rich are the scapegoat.

On this thread alone I have proposed a national sales or property tax as a solution to the class warfare and the encroachment of the .gov on your civil liberties. Yet, you insist on demonizing the successful and attempting to impose by force your vision of what is moral and just without addressing solutions that allow everyone to win except the politicians.

It isn't my fault that someone is poor. Nor is it bill gates fault that I and my wife work two jobs each, and collect a retirement pension, and still fall in under 100K. Trust me I know exactly what the working middle class is all about. And yet, I don't begrudge Mr Gates his success.

can you name a rich person that is being soaked? Do you personally know one?

care