Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Iceweasel]

Must you ALWAYS resort to partisan foolishness?

It may be partisan but it is not foolish. The is no better reason to be partisan than to counter the Crazy New Right and their foolish ideology.

I'm a conservative, not a partier. And there's no better reason to be a conservative than to fight back the corrupt liberal thought and all its' miserable failures.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.

What Conservative political parties are you talking about? There are conservative Republicans, many not so. I haven't heard of any of late in the Democrat party, I believe they've all been shown the door.

I use the term conservative as it is defined in the dictionary, it is not political but politics is how it is forwarded, like the left with liberalism.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm a conservative, not a partier. And there's no better reason to be a conservative than to fight back the corrupt liberal thought and all its' miserable failures.

Define "conservative", or if you prefer, "Conservative" (there are parties by that name, and each has a platform).

I use the term the traditional way. Marked by caution, a look before you leap mentality. Contrary to liberal thought it doesn't mean never change, just change what needs fixing while thinking about the consequences. Spending less than you make. Results oriented versus ideological desires.

Wow, maybe you need a new label - I can see why you aren't a card carrying member of any of the Conservative Political Parties. You're more pragmatic than I thought, if what you wrote is true.

I can't think of any self defined conservative who posts here and deals with things sensibly and realistically, if it doesn't fit into their ideological box, it must be eschewed.

Ironic post is ironic.

On some level you must have an inkling of how truly stupid you are.

LOL. There you are. Nothingto contribute except insults. And not particularly clever ones either.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Why would government not guarantee everyone willing to work a job?

Capitalism needs unemployment, and our economic policy is designed to serve that need: to ensure that there is a supply of people who are unemployed, to be used as a "buffer stock" of employees to prevent inflationary wage shocks.

You're full of shit. Brainwashed, delusional or outright lying, it's hard to say at this point. Capitalism doesn't need unemployment, in fact the opposite is true. The more people employed the more opportunity exists, the better the workers do and the more the nation takes in GDP. It's a win win. One can take everything you say and be confident the exact opposite is the truth.

Why wouldn't a government guarantee everyone a job? That's a question a toddler might ponder. When we are in our teens we know the answer. Some people are lazy and don't want to work. They do little more than show up or cause more harm than good. You think government should find a position for them? They have in droves but we don't need every one of them on the public tit.

This is the problem when you confuse capitalism with "muh freedomz".

Capitalism is an economic system which uses the accumulation and employment of capital to drive markets.

It's not some vague system of "teh libertiez".

In an industrialist capitalist society, price stability is extremely important, because capitalism depends on long-term commitments in capital investment which have reasonably predictable yields.

You all intuitively know this, because you complain incessantly about inflation.

What are the biggest drivers of cost-push inflation? Wages.

In a supply-demand system, which is "price flexible" (which it has to be if your free market ideology is to work - without price flexibility markets DO NOT CLEAR), the only way to prevent wage shocks which make rational investment in long-term capital impossible is to dampen them through the use of supply buffers. That is, you need to be able to hire additional workers without firing off a wage shock. There is only one way to do this: make sure there is unemployment.

This is not some commie accusation against capitalism: this is how it works.

This is what the entire NAIRU doctrine is all about: assuring that there is enough unemployment to prevent "destabilizing" inflation.

This is very standard stuff. Ask any mainstream economist. "Yeah, NAIRU? Remember stagflation? This is how we adapted to a vertical Phillips curve and keep stagflation from happening."

It is unsurprising to me that you do not know this. When people speak in glowing terms of capitalism as if it were some sort of panacaea that would solve all of our problems if gubmint would just step aside, they are thinking they can get a free lunch.

The cost of the sort of system which rabid free marketeers advocate is the death of industrial capitalism. Nobody will invest in long-term, complex, innovative, risky ventures without some assurance that the financial "infrastructure" will have price stability.

We can do that only one of two ways: keeping people unemployed (as our policy does now) or providing government buffer jobs. One of the two is necessary in order to preserve capitalism - which, for all its faults, seems to be the best system we can come up with at the moment.

The choice you have is not between here and Valhalla. It's between here and places that are marginally better or marginally worse (or much worse, if we let our idealism allow us to ignore reality). When we talk about obtaining full employment in the real world, we are not talking about every able body working. It's important to understand that. We are talking about maintaining the lowest rate of involuntary employment which is consistent with the price stability which industry needs in order to continue investment.

I much prefer a system in which a buffer stock of employees is maintained for industry which does not require suffering over the buffer stock system of the unemployed, which we have now.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not simply reserve labor at the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage that can be applied for on an at-will basis?

 

[Iceweasel]

This is the problem when you confuse capitalism with "muh freedomz".

I corrected you just a bit ago. You are the one conflating the two, I said nothing about it. You are attacking windmills.

Capitalism is an economic system which uses the accumulation and employment of capital to drive markets.

It's not some vague system of "teh libertiez".

Huh? Didn't say otherwise.

In an industrialist capitalist society, price stability is extremely important, because capitalism depends on long-term commitments in capital investment which have reasonably predictable yields.

You all intuitively know this, because you complain incessantly about inflation.

I said absolutely nothing about inflation.

What are the biggest drivers of cost-push inflation? Wages.

In a supply-demand system, which is "price flexible" (which it has to be if your free market ideology is to work - without price flexibility markets DO NOT CLEAR), the only way to prevent wage shocks which make rational investment in long-term capital impossible is to dampen them through the use of supply buffers. That is, you need to be able to hire additional workers without firing off a wage shock. There is only one way to do this: make sure there is unemployment.

What are you babbling about? You need more help because people buy your shit so you hire more people. That's capitalism. You are a sea with empty rhetoric.

This is not some commie accusation against capitalism: this is how it works.

This is what the entire NAIRU doctrine is all about: assuring that there is enough unemployment to prevent "destabilizing" inflation.

This is very standard stuff. Ask any mainstream economist. "Yeah, NAIRU? Remember stagflation? This is how we adapted to a vertical Phillips curve and keep stagflation from happening."

It is unsurprising to me that you do not know this. When people speak in glowing terms of capitalism as if it were some sort of panacaea that would solve all of our problems if gubmint would just step aside, they are thinking they can get a free lunch.

The cost of the sort of system which rabid free marketeers advocate is the death of industrial capitalism. Nobody will invest in long-term, complex, innovative, risky ventures without some assurance that the financial "infrastructure" will have price stability.

We can do that only one of two ways: keeping people unemployed (as our policy does now) or providing government buffer jobs. One of the two is necessary in order to preserve capitalism - which, for all its faults, seems to be the best system we can come up with at the moment.

The choice you have is not between here and Valhalla. It's between here and places that are marginally better or marginally worse (or much worse, if we let our idealism allow us to ignore reality). When we talk about obtaining full employment in the real world, we are not talking about every able body working. It's important to understand that. We are talking about maintaining the lowest rate of involuntary employment which is consistent with the price stability which industry needs in order to continue investment.

I much prefer a system in which a buffer stock of employees is maintained for industry which does not require suffering over the buffer stock system of the unemployed, which we have now.

"Providing government buffer jobs". LOL, holy shit. The lamest excuse ever for freeloading high payed well compensated government drones I've ever seen. I'll bet you're on a government computer now.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

You demonstrated you know next to nothing about how our country operates and I pointed it out. The fact that reality is a dog whistle to do proves you're a moron. At least if you were from Ethiopia you might have some excuse.

Your pea brain obviously couldn't receive "We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation..."

You are wrong on everything, don't blame the messenger.

That's just chest-puffing.

Most of us Americans do believe that we earn our freedom. Our rights may be granted by our birth, but our freedom must be earned and defended.

Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice and work.

 

[Iceweasel]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

You demonstrated you know next to nothing about how our country operates and I pointed it out. The fact that reality is a dog whistle to do proves you're a moron. At least if you were from Ethiopia you might have some excuse.

Your pea brain obviously couldn't receive "We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation..."

You are wrong on everything, don't blame the messenger.

That's just chest-puffing.

Most of us Americans do believe that we earn our freedom. Our rights may be granted by our birth, but our freedom must be earned and defended.

Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice and work.

You're puffing, not me. Our freedoms and rights are protected by the Constitution. You're full of shit.

 

[Pksimon2007]

This is the problem when you confuse capitalism with "muh freedomz".

I corrected you just a bit ago. You are the one conflating the two, I said nothing about it. You are attacking windmills.

Capitalism is an economic system which uses the accumulation and employment of capital to drive markets.

It's not some vague system of "teh libertiez".

Huh? Didn't say otherwise.

In an industrialist capitalist society, price stability is extremely important, because capitalism depends on long-term commitments in capital investment which have reasonably predictable yields.

You all intuitively know this, because you complain incessantly about inflation.

I said absolutely nothing about inflation.

What are the biggest drivers of cost-push inflation? Wages.

In a supply-demand system, which is "price flexible" (which it has to be if your free market ideology is to work - without price flexibility markets DO NOT CLEAR), the only way to prevent wage shocks which make rational investment in long-term capital impossible is to dampen them through the use of supply buffers. That is, you need to be able to hire additional workers without firing off a wage shock. There is only one way to do this: make sure there is unemployment.

What are you babbling about? You need more help because people buy your shit so you hire more people. That's capitalism. You are a sea with empty rhetoric.

This is not some commie accusation against capitalism: this is how it works.

This is what the entire NAIRU doctrine is all about: assuring that there is enough unemployment to prevent "destabilizing" inflation.

This is very standard stuff. Ask any mainstream economist. "Yeah, NAIRU? Remember stagflation? This is how we adapted to a vertical Phillips curve and keep stagflation from happening."

It is unsurprising to me that you do not know this. When people speak in glowing terms of capitalism as if it were some sort of panacaea that would solve all of our problems if gubmint would just step aside, they are thinking they can get a free lunch.

The cost of the sort of system which rabid free marketeers advocate is the death of industrial capitalism. Nobody will invest in long-term, complex, innovative, risky ventures without some assurance that the financial "infrastructure" will have price stability.

We can do that only one of two ways: keeping people unemployed (as our policy does now) or providing government buffer jobs. One of the two is necessary in order to preserve capitalism - which, for all its faults, seems to be the best system we can come up with at the moment.

The choice you have is not between here and Valhalla. It's between here and places that are marginally better or marginally worse (or much worse, if we let our idealism allow us to ignore reality). When we talk about obtaining full employment in the real world, we are not talking about every able body working. It's important to understand that. We are talking about maintaining the lowest rate of involuntary employment which is consistent with the price stability which industry needs in order to continue investment.

I much prefer a system in which a buffer stock of employees is maintained for industry which does not require suffering over the buffer stock system of the unemployed, which we have now.

"Providing government buffer jobs". LOL, holy shit. The lamest excuse ever for freeloading high payed well compensated government drones I've ever seen. I'll bet you're on a government computer now.

You can't even come up with an original response, can you?

I laid out the arguments. It's up to you to figure them out, and agree or disagree. But the system I described its the system we have. It's how capitalism works.

There does seem to be a portion of the population which wraps itself in the flag and pretends it's a free lunch, and that everyone else is either stupid or evil for thinking that the system, like all systems, has a price.

I would rather debate a communist than one of you pie-eyed people whose ideas would destroy capitalism and lead to much, much worse, through your naïveté and self-imposed ignorance. Capitalism is a tough system which requires tough people to work. On the other hand, it also chews some people up and spits them out, as a byproduct of its ruthless efficiency.

Most of us understand that the preservation of this mostly marvelous system requires that its teeth and claws be filed a little bit, because the real objective here is not the preservation of the system, but the prosperity of the people who live under it - ALL the people, on te theory that the individual is the source of all innate value. Capitalism is utilitarian, we are, ideally, not. We want the benefits of capitalism and are willing to pay a price for it, but are not so heartless as to select a group of people whom we deem to be of little enough value that they can be sacrificed to the system to benefit the rest of us. We are not Darwinists.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

You demonstrated you know next to nothing about how our country operates and I pointed it out. The fact that reality is a dog whistle to do proves you're a moron. At least if you were from Ethiopia you might have some excuse.

Your pea brain obviously couldn't receive "We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation..."

You are wrong on everything, don't blame the messenger.

That's just chest-puffing.

Most of us Americans do believe that we earn our freedom. Our rights may be granted by our birth, but our freedom must be earned and defended.

Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice and work.

You're puffing, not me. Our freedoms and rights are protected by the Constitution. You're full of shit.

Right. The Constitution was handed down by benevolent gods and our protections are guaranteed by an army of magical unicorns.

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

You demonstrated you know next to nothing about how our country operates and I pointed it out. The fact that reality is a dog whistle to do proves you're a moron. At least if you were from Ethiopia you might have some excuse.

Your pea brain obviously couldn't receive "We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation..."

You are wrong on everything, don't blame the messenger.

That's just chest-puffing.

Most of us Americans do believe that we earn our freedom. Our rights may be granted by our birth, but our freedom must be earned and defended.

Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice and work.

You're puffing, not me. Our freedoms and rights are protected by the Constitution. You're full of shit.

You might want to tell the families of the soldiers that have died defending our freedoms that freedom comes without work or sacrifice.

I'm certain they will thank you for your insight.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Again, LBJ started his "Great Society" nonsense to "end poverty in our lifetime". 50 Trillion dollars later........

Our defense budget has not ended war in our time

My point exactly. War has been going on since the beginning of man. Poverty has been around since the beginning of time. What the hell is your point?

What did Einstein Say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

The point being you spend money on poverty because it is needed. While you may not end all poverty, you provide a safety net, and programs to help people escape poverty

You "spend your money" on poverty!?!?! Jesus - the amount of money that this country has spent on poverty should make us all millionaires!!! How damned much "money" do we have to shell out!?!?!?

Geezzz. even the staunchest left wing communist liberal has the ability to understand that throwing good money after bad only gets you ZERO. This might be hard for you to understand, but I'll give it a shot. Read the following carefully....

IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!

Supply side economics seems to be working for the wealthiest; why do those on the Right believe it doesn't work, but only for the least wealthy in our Republic, under our form of Capitalism?

Yeah, you're obviously right. It only worked for the last 230 years - or, until your boy came into office. Now? Capitalism is suddenly "bad". No. YOUR SIDE is bad. You are misinformed, uninformed and believe in destruction. The "wealthy" have ALWAYS been the supplier of jobs. Ever been hired by a poor man? I didn't think so.

The wealthy invest in America - or they used to - and "hopefully" they will again - because if they don't - we are done as a country.

If your idea is for "government" to "provide" - I STRONGLY suggest you study the history of both the Soviet Union and Red China. IT DOESN'T WORK.

 

[Pksimon2007]

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

Money is fungible. You are veering into jargon and incoherence.

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No one is proposing to tax people into poverty. Although the Democrats have sure tried.

It is Only because the left has been trying to goad the Right to find good Capitalists to make more money with an official Mint at their disposal.

lolwut

 

[Pksimon2007]

- Now if you want to backtrack and claim you would get rid of FICA as well, then you have to abandon your claim of sufficiency in revenues, and we have a very different problem evident in your proposal.

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

Money is fungible. You are veering into jargon and incoherence.

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No one is proposing to tax people into poverty. Although the Democrats have sure tried.

- reducto as absurdism is not a fallacy, sport.

It's a valid form of argument

 

[Iceweasel]

You can't even come up with an original response, can you?

I laid out the arguments. It's up to you to figure them out, and agree or disagree. But the system I described its the system we have. It's how capitalism works.

My response was original, I've worked it out in the 30 years I've been in business. How long have you had yours? Add that to your many lies so far. Apparently lying and positing your opinion as fact is your whole house of cards. No one needs to figure out your bullshit, it's up to you to sell it and so far it looks and stinks like bullshit. Every able person should be working, that's based on reality. It's nonsense to base capitalism on unemployment. What economist agrees with you, can you name one?

 

[Iceweasel]

What country are you from? You know nothing about ours. We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation but too many people are sleep walking though life being directed by the very vocal, rude, immature and ignorant progressives.

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

You demonstrated you know next to nothing about how our country operates and I pointed it out. The fact that reality is a dog whistle to do proves you're a moron. At least if you were from Ethiopia you might have some excuse.

Your pea brain obviously couldn't receive "We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation..."

You are wrong on everything, don't blame the messenger.

That's just chest-puffing.

Most of us Americans do believe that we earn our freedom. Our rights may be granted by our birth, but our freedom must be earned and defended.

Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice and work.

You're puffing, not me. Our freedoms and rights are protected by the Constitution. You're full of shit.

Right. The Constitution was handed down by benevolent gods and our protections are guaranteed by an army of magical unicorns.

You said our freedoms must be earned now you admit it came down to us generations ago. What a tool!

 

[Pksimon2007]

You can't even come up with an original response, can you?

I laid out the arguments. It's up to you to figure them out, and agree or disagree. But the system I described its the system we have. It's how capitalism works.

My response was original, I've worked it out in the 30 years I've been in business. How long have you had yours? Add that to your many lies so far. Apparently lying and positing your opinion as fact is your whole house of cards. No one needs to figure out your bullshit, it's up to you to sell it and so far it looks and stinks like bullshit. Every able person should be working, that's based on reality. It's nonsense to base capitalism on unemployment. What economist agrees with you, can you name one?

- You provided no argument in response, other than to blurt out an angry retort.

 

[Pksimon2007]

If there is anything relevant in your little diatribe, you have hidden it under so much hyperbole that nobody can hear it unless they hear dog whistles.

I'm American. What are you?

You demonstrated you know next to nothing about how our country operates and I pointed it out. The fact that reality is a dog whistle to do proves you're a moron. At least if you were from Ethiopia you might have some excuse.

Your pea brain obviously couldn't receive "We don't earn freedom here. We aren't supposed to have taxation without representation..."

You are wrong on everything, don't blame the messenger.

That's just chest-puffing.

Most of us Americans do believe that we earn our freedom. Our rights may be granted by our birth, but our freedom must be earned and defended.

Freedom is not free. It requires sacrifice and work.

You're puffing, not me. Our freedoms and rights are protected by the Constitution. You're full of shit.

Right. The Constitution was handed down by benevolent gods and our protections are guaranteed by an army of magical unicorns.

You said our freedoms must be earned now you admit it came down to us generations ago. What a tool!

Your logic is hopeless.

Let's review the bidding.

I said that your earnings, after paying what you need to barely survive, are your economic freedom.

You responded that freedom is free.

That doesn't even address the point, and uses the fallacious logic of denying the antecedent, which IS an actual logical fallacy, as I pointed out when I first responded.

We have now gone down some rabbit hole where you are insisting that your non responsive assertion is the argument.

Even if your non responsive assertion were correct, it DID NOT ADDRESS my position, but is over in some foreign land by itself.

The bottom line is that not only did you not address the argument, you have forgotten what the argument is, and are now puffing out your chest and insulting me, which has the effect of waving your logical inabilities like a flag.

Pro tip: in discussion and debate, it is always helpful to be able to remember what the argument is about.

 

[The Rabbi]

I never talked about FICA, stop changing the issue.

The issues here are your claim that the income tax is the only progressive tax and that I want to impose more regressive taxes on the poor. You are wrong on both counts.

Look, if you disagree with getting rid of the income tax, that's fine, we can have an argument on the merits of the position. But to keep lying and saying I want to add more taxes on the poor when I clearly state I want to remove the income tax and replace it with nothing is dishonest and I won't have it. That is not a debate.

To debate, you have to counter the argument of your opponent, not ignore his argument and create your own strawman.

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

Money is fungible. You are veering into jargon and incoherence.

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No one is proposing to tax people into poverty. Although the Democrats have sure tried.

- reducto as absurdism is not a fallacy, sport.

It's a valid form of argument

OK you've reached your quota of "stupid" for any poster. You are a misnformed arrogant ignorant piece of shit spouting words and phrases you heard somewhere in some sociology class. And you're on Iggy.

 

[Pksimon2007]

There's another aspect that you haven't considered (I find it amazingly rare that anyone does).

Think about the effects of systems of taxation not in relation to each other, but in relation to the null hypothesis - no tax at all.

In such a scenario there is some basic income required for bare survival. Assuming similarity in location, age, and medical condition, that income required is the same or every one.

Let's call that mandatory income, all of which must be spent for the person's survival.

Let's call the remainder of one's income discretionary income (because there is no tax, disposable income is meaningless). This income can be spent, saved, or invested in any way one likes.

It represents your economic freedom.

It also represents the o my income which can be taxed, because taxation of mandatory income result, in extremis, in your death.

So what constitutes "fair"? If we tax 10% of everyone's income, what is the impact?

If your income is the mandatory income, we are literally taxing you to death.

If your income is 10% above the mandatory income, we are taxing 100% of your economic freedom.

If your income is 11 times the mandatory income, we are taxing 19% of your economic freedom.

A flat tax, then, has a disparate income on the liberty of the people it taxes, leaving more liberty to those who earn more, taxing all liberty from those of modest means, and barely impacting tehe liberty of the wealthy.

If you disagree that taxes impact liberty, then the argument of taxation becomes purely utilitarian, and the rhetoric of libertarians and the Tea Party become meaningless sophistry.

The only way to create a system which impacts the liberty which all have earned in equal measure is to Prevatte the bottom so that mandatory income is not taxed at all, and to impose highly progressive income taxes on everyone else.

Money is fungible. You are veering into jargon and incoherence.

- Fungibility has nothing to do with it. If your total tax bill leaves you unable to eat, that's bad. When a tax is imposed, the money you have left to spend on yourself is a residual. You're either left with enough to survive or not. You're either left with some of the freedom you've earned, or you're not.

That's a reductio ad absurdum fallacy. No one is proposing to tax people into poverty. Although the Democrats have sure tried.

- reducto as absurdism is not a fallacy, sport.

It's a valid form of argument

OK you've reached your quota of "stupid" for any poster. You are a misnformed arrogant ignorant piece of shit spouting words and phrases you heard somewhere in some sociology class. And you're on Iggy.

That was a truly informed, cogent response

/sarc

 

[zeke]

That was a truly informed, cogent response

You get that type of argument a lot on this site.

Been fun going to "school" on this tread. And you got to meet rabbit and weasel. Aren't they some persuasive "debaters"? Them; "You a dummy, NO YOU Dummy. NO YOU A DUMMY". It does't get better by posts either. You have what, a couple hundred posts that make sense to your argument.. Rabbits got 60 thousand posts and hasn't made sense to an argument yet. His practice has made for some funny posts though; rabbit says "You a dummy, YOU a big dummy" over and over. Good luck if looking for an intelligent right wing response to most anything that might be of interest in a politics section.

You've studied that fractional banking system, that's for damned sure. Hobby or profession? Just curious.